References
- Hanson , N. R. 1969 . Patterns of Discovery Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
- 1980 . ‘Justification, Discovery and the Naturalizing of Epistemology,’ . Philosophy of Science , 47 For discussion and examples, see H. Siegel, 300f.
- 1969 . Ontological Relativity and Other Essays New York : Columbia University Press . ‘Epistemology Naturalized,’ in W.V.Quine
- Bas , C. van Fraassen . 1980 . The Scientific Image Oxford : The Clarendon Press .
- Lakatos , I. and Musgrave , A. , eds. 1980 . Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Imŕe Lakatos, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,’ in
- McMullin , E. 1984 . “ ‘A Case for Scientific Realism,’ in ” . In Scientific Realism Edited by: Leplin , J. Berkeley : University of California Press . See, for example,.
- Leplin , J. 1975 . ‘The Concept of an . Ad Hoc , : 309 – 45 . Cf. Hypothesis,’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 5
- Leplin , J. 1982 . ‘The Assessment of Auxiliary Hypotheses,’ . British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 33 : 335 – 49 . Cf.
- Principia Proposition XVIII, Book III, cites Flamsteed and Cassini in the first edition of the it refers simply to the ‘observations of astronomers’ in the second edition.
- Gardner , M. 1982 . ‘Predicting Novel Facts,’ . The British journal for the Philosophy of Science , 33 See 1–15, for review of this literature.
- Zahar , E. 1973 . ‘Why Did Einstein's Programme Supercede Lorentz's?’ . The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 24 : 66 – 70 . 223–62. I doubt that Lakatos, whose view Zahar is seeking to improve, ever intended such a constraint. Long before Zahar, Lakatos construed previously known but unexplained results as novel for the theory explaining them by relativizing the individuation of facts to theories. See ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,’
- Ibid. 103
- Zahar ought to say that the Michelson-Morley result ‘governed’ the construction of special relativity. But as he thinks that the result was novel for special relativity, he is obliged by his analysis to deny my supposition. Of course he has no evidence to support his denial, and it is a considerable convenience, philosophical as well as historical, to be able to admit the supposition.