Bibliography
Achinstein, P. (2007). Atom’s empirical Eve: Methodological disputes and how to evaluate them, Perspectives on Science, 15 (3), 359–90.
Achinstein, P. (1991). Particles and Waves: Historical Essays in the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press.
Arabatzis, T. (2008). Experiment. In Curd, M. and Psillos, S. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, Routledge, 159–70.
Ariew, R. (1984). The Duhem thesis, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35, 313–25.
Baetu, T. (2019). On the possibility of crucial experiments in biology, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70, 407–29.
Barnes, E. C. (2008). The Paradox of Predictivism, Cambridge University Press.
Beauchemin, P. H. (2017). Autopsy of measurements with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Synthese, 194, 275–312.
Ben-Menahem, Y. (2006). Conventionalism: From Poincaré to Quine. Cambridge University Press.
Bhakthavatsalam, S. (2017). Duhemian good sense and agent reliabilism, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 64, 22–9.
Bhakthavatsalam, S. (2015). The rationale behind Pierre Duhem’s natural classification, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 51, 11–21.
Boyd, R. (1983). On the current status of the issue of scientific realism, Erkenntnis, 19, 45–90.
Breitenbach, A. (2013). Aesthetics in science: A Kantian proposal, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 113, 83–100.
Brenner, A. (1990). Holism a century ago: The elaboration of Duhem’s thesis, Synthese, 83, 325–35.
Brownstein, M., and Saul, J. (2016) Implicit Bias and Philosophy: Metaphysics and Epistemology, Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, A. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science? 3rd edition, University of Queensland Press.
Chang, H. (forthcoming). Realism for Realistic People, Cambridge University Press.
Coko, K. (2020). Jean Perrin and the philosophers’ stories: The role of multiple determination in determining Avogadro’s number, HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 10 (1), 143–93.
Coko, K. (2015). Epistemology of a believing historian: Making sense of Duhem’s anti-atomism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 50, 71–82.
Criado-Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, Vintage.
Cushing, J. (1994). Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony, University of Chicago Press.
Darden, L. (1991). Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. Oxford University Press.
Darden, L. (1990). Diagnosing and fixing faults in theories. In Shrager, J. and Langley, P. (eds.), Computational Models of Scientific Discovery and Theory Formation, Morgan Kaufmann, 319–46.
Darling, K. M. (2003). Motivational realism: The natural classification for Pierre Duhem, Philosophy of Science, 70 (5), 1125–36.
Dietrich, M., and Honenberger, P. (2020) Duhem’s problem revisited: Logical vs epistemic formulations and solutions, Synthese, 197, 337–54.
Dion, S. M. (2013) Pierre Duhem and the inconsistency between instrumentalism and natural classification, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, 12–19.
Dorling, J. (1979). Bayesian personalism, the methodology of scientific research programmes, and Duhem’s problem, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10 (3), 177–87.
Duhem, P. (1991 [1915]). German Science: Some Reflections on German Science: German Science and German Virtues (J. Lyon, trans.), Open Court.
Duhem, P. (1969 [1908]). To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo (E. Doland and C. Mascher, trans.), University of Chicago Press.
Duhem, P. (1954 [1906]). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press.
Fairweather, A. (2012). The epistemic value of good sense, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43, 139–46.
Fisher, R. A. (1947). The Design of Experiment, Oliver and Boyd.
Fitelson, B., and Waterman, A. (2005). Bayesian confirmation and auxiliary hypotheses revisited: A reply to Strevens. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 293–302.
Franklin, A. (1986). The Neglect of Experiment, Cambridge University Press.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, Oxford University Press.
Galison, P. (1987). How Experiments End, Chicago University Press.
Giere, R. (1988). Explaining Science, Chicago University Press.
Gower, B. S. (2000). Cassirer, Schlick and ‘structural’ realism: The philosophy of the exact sciences in the background to early logical empiricism’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 8, 71–106.
Grünbaum, A. (1962). The falsifiability of theories: Total or partial? A contemporary evaluation of the Duhem-Quine thesis, Synthese, 14, 17–34.
Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In Pickering, A (ed.), Science As Practice and Culture, University of Chicago Press, 29–64.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge University Press.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Cambridge University Press.
Harding, S. G. (ed.) (1975). Can Theories Be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, Reidel.
Hoefer, C., and Rosenberg, A. (1994). Empirical equivalence, underdetermination, and systems of the World. Philosophy of Science, 61, 592–607.
Holmes, F. L. (2008). Meselson, Stahl, and the Replication of DNA, Yale University Press.
Howson, C., and Urbach, P. (1989). Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Open Court.
Hudson, R. (2020) What was Perrin really doing in his proof of the reality of atoms? HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 10, 194–218.
Hull, D. (1988). Science As a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. University of Chicago Press.
Ivanova, M. (forthcoming). Theory virtues and theory acceptance, Lauener Series in Philosophy: Bas van Fraassen’s Contribution to Philosophy of Science.
Ivanova, M. (2020b). Reflections on the reception of Jean Perrin’s experiments by his contemporaries, HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 219-224.
Ivanova, M. (2020a). Beauty, truth and understanding. In Ivanova, Milena and French, Steven (eds.) The Aesthetics of Science: Beauty, Imagination and Understanding, Routledge, 86–104.
Ivanova, M. (2017b). Poincaré’s aesthetics of science, Synthese, 194, 2581–94.
Ivanova, M. (2017a). Aesthetic values in science, Philosophy Compass, 12. DOI: 10.1111/phc3.12433
Ivanova, M. (2015). Conventionalism about what? Where Duhem and Poincaré part ways, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 54, 80–9.
Ivanova, M. (2014). Is there a place for epistemic virtues in theory choice? In Fairweather, A (ed.), Virtue Scientia: Bridges between Virtue Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, Synthese Library, 366, 207–26.
Ivanova, M. (2013). Did Perrin’s experiments convert Poincaré to scientific realism? HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 3, 1–19.
Ivanova, M. (2011). ‘Good sense’ in context: A response to Kidd, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42, 610–12.
Ivanova, M. (2010). Pierre Duhem’s good sense as a guide to theory choice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 41, 58–64.
Ivanova, M., and French, S. (2020). The Aesthetics of Science: Beauty, Imagination and Understanding, Routledge.
Ivanova, M., and Paternotte, C. (2013). Theory choice, good sense and social consensus. Erkenntnis, 78, 1109–32.
Kidd, I. (2011). Pierre Duhem’s epistemic aims and the intellectual virtue of humility: A reply to Ivanova. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 42, 185–9.
Kidd, I., Battaly, H. and Cassam, Q. (2020). Vice Epistemology: Theory and Practice, Routledge.
Kitcher, P. (1993). The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 87, 5–22.
Kollerstrom, N. (2006) An hiatus in history: The British claim for Neptune’s co-prediction, 1845–1846. Part I, History of Science, 44, 141–62.
Kuhn, T. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The Essential Tension, University of Chicago Press, 320–53.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press.
Laudan, L., & Leplin, J. (1991). Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. Journal of Philosophy, 88, 269–85.
Levi, I. (1982) Ignorance, probability and rational choice, Synthese, 53, 387–417.
Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd edition, Routledge.
Longino, H. (1990). Science As Social Knowledge: Value and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press.
Lugg, A. (1990). Pierre Duhem’s conception of natural classification. Synthese, 83, 409–20.
Mann, K. (2020) Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women, Allen Lane.
Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male female roles. Signs, 16, 485–501.
Martin, R. N. D. (1991). Pierre Duhem: Philosophy and History in the Work of a Believing Physicist, Open Court.
Massey, G. J. (2011). Quine and Duhem on holistic hypotheses testing, American Philosophical Quarterly, 48, 239–66.
Mättig, P., and Stöltzner, M. (2019). Model choice and crucial tests. On the empirical epistemology of the Higgs discovery, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 65, 73–96.
Maxwell, G. (1962). The ontological status of theoretical entities. In Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, University of Minnesota Press, 3–14.
Mayo, D. G. (1997). Duhem’s problem, the Bayesian way, and error statistics, or ‘What’s belief got to do with it?’ Philosophy of Science, 64, 222–44.
Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
McAllister, J. (1996). Beauty and Revolution in Science. Cornell University Press.
McMullin, E. (2009). The virtue of a perfect theory. In Curd, M. and Psillos, S. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, Routledge.
McMullin, E. (1990). Comment: Duhem’s middle way. Synthese, 83, 421–30.
Meselson, M., and Stahl, F. W. (1958). The replication of DNA in Escherichia coli, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 44, 671–82.
Miller, B. (2013). When is consensus knowledge based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement. Synthese, 190, 1293–1316.
Mongin, P. (2009). Duhemian themes in expected utility theory. In Brenner, A. and Gayon, J. (eds.), French Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Springer.
Okasha, S. (2000) Van Fraassen’s critique of inference to the best explanation, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31, 691–710.
Paternotte, C. and Ivanova, M. (2017). Virtues and vices in scientific practice. Synthese 194, 1787–1807.
Paul, L. (2014). Transformative Experience, Oxford University Press.
Pettigrew, R. (2020). Choosing for Changing Selves, Oxford University Press.
Pohlhaus, G., and Kidd, I. (2017). The Routledge Handbook to Epistemic Injustice, Routledge.
Poincaré, H. (2001 [1902]) Science and hypothesis. In Gould (ed.), S., The Value of Science: Essential Writings of Henri Poincaré, The Modern Library.
Poincaré, H. (1963 [1913]). Science and Mathematics: Last Essays. Dover.
Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge.
Psillos, S. (2014). The view from within and the view from above: Looking at van Fraassen’s Perrin, Bas van Fraassen’s Approach to Representation and Models in Science, Synthese Library 36: 143–66.
Psillos, S. (1999) Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. Routledge.
Putnam, H. (1975). Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1: Mathematics, Matter and Method, Cambridge University Press.
Redhead, M. (1995). From Physics to Metaphysics, Cambridge University Press.
Rowbottom, D. P. (2010). Corroboration and auxiliary hypotheses: Duhem’s thesis revisited, Synthese, 177, 139–49.
Russell, B. (1927). The Analysis of Matter, George Allen & Unwin.
Schindler, S. (2018). Theory Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory, Cambridge University Press.
Sklar, L. (1974). Space, Time, and Spacetime, University of California Press.
Sober, E. (2004). Likelihood, model selection, and the Duhem-Quine problem. The Journal of Philosophy, 101, 221–41.
Solomon, M. (2001). Social Empiricism. MIT Press.
Stanford, P. K. (2006) Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives, Oxford University Press.
Strevens, M. (2003) The role of the priority rule in science. Journal of Philosophy 100, 55–79.
Strevens, M. (2001). The Bayesian treatment of auxiliary hypotheses. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52, 515–37.
Stump, D. (2011). The scientist as impartial judge: Moral values in Duhem’s philosophy of science. New perspectives on Pierre Duhem’s The aim and structure of physical theory (book symposium), Metascience, 20, 1–25.
Stump, D. (2007). Pierre Duhem’s virtue epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38, 149–59.
Todd, C. S. (2008). Unmasking the truth beneath the beauty: Why the supposed aesthetic judgments made in science may not be aesthetic at all. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 22: 61–79.
van Fraassen, B. (2009). The perils of Perrin, in the hands of philosophers. Philosophical Studies, 143, 5–24.
van Fraassen, B. (1989) Laws and symmetry. Oxford University Press.
van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image, Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. (2009). The crux of crucial experiments: Duhem’s problems and inference to the best explanation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 19–49.
Weisberg, M., and Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic landscapes and the division of labour. Philosophy of Science, 76, 225–52.
Worrall, J. (2009) Underdetermination, realism and empirical equivalence, Synthese, 180, 157–72.
Worrall, J. (1996 [1989]). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? In Papineau, D. (ed.), The Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 139–66.
Zagzebski, L. (2003). The search for the source of epistemic good. In Brady, M. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Moral and Epistemic Virtues, Blackwell, 13–27.
Zollman, K. J. S. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72, 17–35.
