Ernest Nagel's Model of Reduction and Theory Change

References

• Brush, S. G. 1976. The Kind of Motion We Call Heat. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Brush, S. G. 1983. Statistical Physics and the Atomic Theory of Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Butterfield, J. 2011. “Less is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled.” Foundations of Physics 41: 1065–1135. doi:10.1007/s10701-010-9516-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, P. 1976. “Atomism Versus Thermodynamics.” In Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences, edited by C. Howson, 41–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Regt, H. 1996. “Philosophy and the Kinetic Theory of Gases.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 31–62. doi:10.1093/bjps/47.1.31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dizadji-Bahmani, F., R. Frigg, and S. Hartmann. 2010. “Who’s Afraid of Nagelian Reduction?” Erkenntnis 73: 393–412. doi:10.1007/s10670-010-9239-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, J., et al. 2021. “Statistical Physics Approaches to the Complex Earth System.” Physics Reports 896: 1–84. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.09.005
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fazekas, P. 2009. “Reconsidering the Role of Bridge Laws in Inter-Theoretical Reductions.” Erkenntnis 71: 303–322. doi:10.1007/s10670-009-9181-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 1991. “The re-Evaluation of Logical Positivism.” Journal of Philosophy 88: 505–519. doi:10.5840/jphil1991881020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 2001. Dynamics of Reason. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 2010. “Synthetic History Reconsidered.” In Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science, edited by M. Domski and M. Dickson, 571–813. Chicago: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Gillett, C. 2016. Reduction and Emergence in Science and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, M. I. 2015. Reductive Explanation in the Biological Sciences. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, C. 2009. “Reduction Without Reductionism: A Defence of Nagel on Connectability.” The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 39–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2008.560.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marras, A. 2002. “Kim on Reduction.” Erkenntnis 57: 231–257. doi:10.1023/A:1020932406567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. 1965/1860. “Illustrations of the Dynamic Theory of Gases.” In Vol 1 of Scientific Papers, edited by W. D. Niven, 377–409. New York: Dover Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. 1965/1865. “On the Viscosity or Internal Friction of air and Other Gases.” In Vol 2 of Scientific Papers, edited by W. V. Niven, 1–25. New York: Dover Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, E. 1935. “The Logic of Reduction in the Sciences.” Erkenntnis 5: 46–52. doi:10.1007/BF00172282
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, E. 1936. “Reduction and Autonomy in the Sciences.” In Actes du Huitième Congrès International de Philosophie, à Prague, 2-7 septembre 1934, edited by Comité d’organisation du Congrès, 181–186. Prague: Comité d’organisation du Congrès.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, E. 1949. “The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences.” In Science and Civilization, edited by R. C. Stouffer, 99–135. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, E. 1979/1961. The Structure of Science: Problem in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Indianapolis: Hackett.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, E. 1979/1970. “Issues in the Logic of Reductive Explanations.” In Teleology Revisited, and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science, edited by E. Nagel, 95–117. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, E., and R. Nunn. 2022/1983. “Interview with Ernest Nagel.” In Ernest Nagel: Philosophy of Science and the Fight for Clarity, edited by M. Neuber, and A. T. Tuboly, 257–314. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Needham, P. 2010. “Nagel's Analysis of Reduction: Comments in Defense as Well as Critique.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41: 163–170. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2009.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyhof, J. 1988. “Philosophical Objections to the Kinetic Theory.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39: 81–109. doi:10.1093/bjps/39.1.81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pathria, R., and P. Beale. 2022. Statistical Mechanics. 4th ed. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sarkar, S. 2015. “Nagel on Reduction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 53: 43–56. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaffner, K. F. 1967. “Approaches to Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 34: 137–147. doi:10.1086/288137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaffner, K. F. 1993. Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schaffner, K. F. 2012. “Ernest Nagel and Reduction.” The Journal of Philosophy 109: 534–565. doi:10.5840/jphil20121098/926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, L. 2018. “Reduction Redux.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 68: 10–19. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.11.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sklar, L. 1993. Physics and Chance: Philosophical Issues in the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Riel, R. 2011. “Nagelian Reduction Beyond the Nagel Model.” Philosophy of Science 78: 353–375. doi:10.1086/660300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Riel, R., and R. Van Gulick. 2019. “Scientific Reduction.” https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/scientific-reduction/.
   Google Scholar
• Wimsatt, W. C. 2007. Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar