Emotions in scientific practice

References

• Anderson, Elizabeth. 2004. “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce.” Hypatia 19 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01266.x
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, Craig, Dante Dixson, Maria Monroy, and Dacher Keltner. 2020. “Are Awe-Prone People More Curious? The Relationship Between Dispositional Awe, Curiosity, and Academic Outcomes.” Journal of Personality 88 (4): 762–779. doi:10.1111/jopy.12524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arcangeli, Margherita. 2010. “Imagination in Thought Experimentation: Sketching a Cognitive Approach to Thought Experiments.” In Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology: Abduction, Logic, and Computational Discovery, edited by Lorenzo Magnani, Walter Carnielli, and Claudio Pizzi, 571–587. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15223-8_32.
   Google Scholar
• Arcangeli, Margherita. 2021. “Narratives and Thought Experiments: Restoring the Role of Imagination.” In Epistemic Uses of Imagination, edited by Christopher Badura, and Amy Kind, 183–201. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arcangeli, Margherita, and Jérôme Dokic. 2020. “A Plea for the Sublime in Science.” In The Aesthetics of Science, edited by Milena Ivanova, and Steven French, 104–124. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Aufrecht, Monica. 2017. “Reichenbach Falls—And Rises? Reconstructing the Discovery/Justification Distinction.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 31 (2): 151–176. doi:10.1080/02698595.2018.1424760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberousse, Anouk, and Pascal Ludwig. 2009. “Models as Fictions.” In Fictions in Science. Philosophical Essays in Modeling and Idealizations, edited by Mauricio Suárez, 56–73. Routledge. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00775589.
   Google Scholar
• Baumberger, Christoph, Claus Beisbart, and Georg Brun. 2017. “What Is Understanding? An Overview of Recent Debates in Epistemology and Philosophy of Science.” In Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, edited by Stephen Grimm, Christoph Baumberger, and Sabine Ammon, 1–34. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, John. 2006. "Replaying Life’s Tape". The Journal of Philosophy 103 (7): 336–62. doi: 10.2307/20619950.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, John. 2016. "What Are Narratives Good For?" Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 58 (August): 33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.12.016.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Birney, Ewan. 2013. “Scientists and Their Emotions: The Highs … and the Lows”. The Guardian. 10 February 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/10/scientists-emotions-highs-lows.
   Google Scholar
• Brady, Michael S. 2009. “Curiosity and the Value of Truth.” In Epistemic Value, edited by Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar, and Duncan Pritchard, 1st ed., 265–283. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231188.003.0013.
   Google Scholar
• Breitenbach, Angela. 2020. “One Imagination in Experiences of Beauty and Achievements of Understanding.” The British Journal of Aesthetics 60 (1): 71–88. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayz048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candiotto, Laura. 2019. “Epistemic Emotions: The Case of Wonder.” Revista de Filosofia Aurora 31 (Dec), doi:10.7213/1980-5934.31.054.DS11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candiotto, Laura. 2023. “Emotions in Knowledge Production”. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Critical Perspectives on Science (SI).
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Currie, Adrian. 2017. “From Models-as-Fictions to Models-as-Tools.” Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 4 (27), doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0004.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie, Adrian. 2018. “The Argument from Surprise.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48 (5): 639–661. doi:10.1080/00455091.2017.1368860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie, Adrian. 2019. “Existential Risk, Creativity & Well-Adapted Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76 (Aug.): 39–48. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.09.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie, Adrian. 2021. “Epistemic Engagement, Aesthetic Value & Scientific Practice.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (Apr), doi:10.1086/714802.
   Google Scholar
• Currie, Adrian, and Kim Sterelny. 2017. “In Defence of Story-Telling.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 62 (Apr.): 14–21. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 2010. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, David. 2007. “Thought Experiments and Fictional Narratives.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1): 29–45. doi:10.5840/croatjphil20077129.
   Google Scholar
• Deonna, Julien, Christine Tappolet, and Fabrice Teroni. 2015. “Emotion, Philosophical Issues About.” WIRES Cognitive Science 6 (3): 193–207. doi:10.1002/wcs.1342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Regt, Henk. 2017. Understanding Scientific Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Regt, Henk, and Dennis Dieks. 2005. “A Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding.” Synthese 144 (1): 137–170. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-5000-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgin, Catherine. 2007a. “Emotion and Understanding.” In Epistemology and Emotions, edited by Georg Brun, Ulvi Doğuoğlu, and Dominique Kuenzle, 33–50. London: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Elgin, Catherine. 2007b. “Understanding and the Facts.” Philosophical Studies 132 (1): 33–42. doi:10.1007/s11098-006-9054-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgin, Catherine. 2017. True Enough. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fehige, Yiftach, and Michael T. Stuart. 2014. “On the Origins of the Philosophy of Thought Experiments: The Forerun.” Perspectives on Science 22 (2): 179–220. doi:10.1162/POSC_a_00127.
   Google Scholar
• French, Steven, and Alice Murphy. 2021. “The Value of Surprise in Science.” Erkenntnis (Jul), 1–20. doi:10.1007/s10670-021-00410-z.
   Google Scholar
• Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. “Models and Fictions in Science.” Philosophical Studies 143 (1): 101–116. doi:10.1007/s11098-008-9313-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gopnik, Alison. 2000. “Explanation as Orgasm and the Drive for Causal Understanding: The Evolution, Function and Phenomenology of the Theory-Formation System.” In Cognition and Explanation, edited by Frank C. Keil, and Robert A. Wilson, 299–323. MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/2930.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Gottlieb, Sara, Dacher Keltner, and Tania Lombrozo. 2018. “Awe as a Scientific Emotion.” Cognitive Science 42 (6): 2081–2094. doi:10.1111/cogs.12648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greco, John. 2000. “Two Kinds of Intellectual Virtue.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (1): 179–184. doi:10.2307/2653438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, Stephen. 2009. “Reliability and the Sense of Understanding.” In Scientific Understanding, edited by Henk de Regt, Sabina Leonelli, and Kai Eigner, 83–99. University of Pittsburgh Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt9qh59s.8.
   Google Scholar
• Grimm, Stephen. 2016. “Understanding and Transparency.” In Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, edited by Stephen Grimm, Christoph Baumberger, and Sabine Ammon, 212–229. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hannon, Michael. 2020. “Recent Work in the Epistemology of Understanding.” American Philosophical Quarterly 58 (Jan.), doi:10.2307/48616060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hills, Alison. 2016. "Understanding Why". Noûs 50 (4): 661-688. doi: 10.1111/nous.12092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hookway, Christopher. 1998. “Doubt: Affective States and the Regulation of Inquiry.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24: 203–225. doi:10.1080/00455091.1998.10717500.
   Google Scholar
• Ichikawa, Jonathan, and Benjamin Jarvis. 2009. “Thought-Experiment Intuitions and Truth in Fiction.” Philosophical Studies 142 (2): 221–246. doi:10.1007/s11098-007-9184-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanova, Milena. 2017a. “Aesthetic Values in Science.” Philosophy Compass 12 (10): e12433. doi:10.1111/phc3.12433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanova, Milena. 2017b. “Poincaré’s Aesthetics of Science.” Synthese 194 (7): 2581–2594. doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1069-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanova, Milena. 2020. “Beauty, Truth and Understanding.” In The Aesthetics of Science, edited by Milena Ivanova, and Steven French, 86–103. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429030284-5.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanova, Milena. 2022. “What is a Beautiful Experiment?” Erkenntnis (Jan.). doi:10.1007/s10670-021-00509-3.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanova, Milena, and Alice Murphy, eds. 2023. The Aesthetics of Scientific Experiments. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jaggar, Alison M. 1989. “Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology.” Inquiry 32 (2): 151–176. doi:10.1080/00201748908602185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janack, Marianne. 2002. “Dilemmas of Objectivity.” Social Epistemology 16 (3): 267–281. doi:10.1080/0269172022000025624.
   Google Scholar
• Kampourakis, Kostas, and Uller, Tobias, eds. 2020. Philosophy of Science for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108648981.
   Google Scholar
• Keil, Frank C. 2006. “Explanation and Understanding.” Annual Review of Psychology 57: 227–254. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalifa, Kareem. 2016. “Must Understanding Be Coherent?” In Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, edited by Stephen Grimm, Christoph Baumberger, and Sabine Ammon, 139–164. Cambridge: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Khalifa, Kareem. 2017. Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108164276.
   Google Scholar
• Kinberg, Ori, and Arnon Levy. 2022. “The Epistemic Imagination Revisited.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 00: 1–18. doi:10.1111/phpr.12909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind, Amy, and Peter Kung. 2016. Knowledge Through Imagination, First Edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kochan, Jeff. 2013. “Subjectivity and Emotion in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3): 354–362. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskinen, Inkeri. 2020. “Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71 (4): 1187–1207. doi:10.1093/bjps/axy053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosso, Peter. 2002. “The Omniscienter: Beauty and Scientific Understanding.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (1): 39–48. doi:10.1080/02698590120118819.
   Google Scholar
• Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of Science After Feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kranke, Nina. 2022. “The Trees’ Tale: Filigreed Phylogenetic Trees and Integrated Narratives.” In Narrative Science: Reasoning, Representing and Knowing Since 1800, edited by Dominic J. Berry, Kim M. Hajek, and Mary S. Morgan, 206–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009004329.011.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, Thomas. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension—Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, edited by Thomas Kuhn, 321–339. The University of Chicago Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/KUHOVJ.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, Thomas. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition. Edited by Ian Hacking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kvanvig, Jonathan. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leonelli, Sabina. 2013. “Integrating Data to Acquire New Knowledge: Three Modes of Integration in Plant Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4, Part A): 503–514. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.020.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leonelli, Sabina. 2015. “What Counts as Scientific Data? A Relational Framework.” Philosophy of Science 82 (5): 810–821. doi:10.1086/684083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonelli, Sabina. 2019. “Data — from Objects to Assets.” Nature 574 (7778): 317–320. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03062-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, Arnon, and William Bechtel. 2013. “Abstraction and the Organization of Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 80 (2): 241–261. doi:10.1086/670300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, Arnon, and Peter Godfrey-Smith. 2019. The Scientific Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lipton, Peter. 2009. “Understanding Without Explanation.” In Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Henk de Regt, Sabina Leonelli, and Kai Eigner, 43–63. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Longino, Helen. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2tvzv0.
   Google Scholar
• Longino, Helen. 2004. “How Values Can Be Good for Science.” In Science, Values, and Objectivity, edited by Peter Machamer, and Gereon Wolters, 127–142. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Longino, Helen, and Kathleen Lennon. 1997. “Feminist Epistemology as a Local Epistemology.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 71: 19–54. doi:10.1111/1467-8349.00017
   Google Scholar
• Magnani, Lorenzo, and Nancy Nersessian. 2002. Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, Values. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Magnani, Lorenzo, Nancy Nersessian, and Paul Thagard. 1999. Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Majeed, Raamy. 2019. “What Can Information Encapsulation Tell Us About Emotional Rationality?” In The Value of Emotions for Knowledge, edited by Laura Candiotto, 51–69. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15667-1_3.
   Google Scholar
• McAllister, James W. 1996. Beauty and Revolution in Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meynell, Letitia. 2014. “Imagination and Insight: A New Acount of the Content of Thought Experiments.” Synthese 191 (17): 4149–4168. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0519-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meynell, Letitia. 2017. “Images and Imagination in Thought Experiments.” In The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments, edited by Michael Stuart, Yiftach Fehige, and James Brown, 498–511. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, Mary. 2004. “Imagination and Imaging in Economic Model Building.” Philosophy of Science 71 (Dec): 753–766. doi:10.1086/426769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, Mary. 2005. “Experiments Versus Models: New Phenomena, Inference and Surprise.” Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2): 317–329. doi:10.1080/13501780500086313.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, Mary. 2017. “Narrative Ordering and Explanation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 62 (Apr.): 86–97. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, Mary, Kim Hajek, and Dominic Berry, eds. 2022. Narrative Science: Reasoning, Representing and Knowing Since 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/narrative-science/C24469AE3BC2B8EEACF8DE743BB46614.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, Mary, and Margaret Morrison, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Ideas in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511660108.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, Mary, and Norton Wise. 2017. “Narrative Science and Narrative Knowing. Introduction to Special Issue on Narrative Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, SI: Narrative in Science 62 (April): 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.005.
   Google Scholar
• Morton, Adam. 2010. “Epistemic Emotions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Emotion, edited by Peter Goldie, 385–399. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, Alice. 2020a. “The Aesthetic and Literary Qualities of Scientific Thought Experiments.” In The Aesthetics of Science, edited by Milena Ivanova, and Steven French, 146–166. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, Alice. 2020b. “Towards a Pluralist Account of the Imagination in Science.” Philosophy of Science 87 (5): 957–967. doi:10.1086/710620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, Alice. 2022. “Imagination in Science.” Philosophy Compass 17 (6): e12836. doi:10.1111/phc3.12836.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, Alice. 2023. “Form and Content: A Defence of Aesthetic Value in Science.” Philosophy of Science (Feb), 1–26. doi:10.1017/psa.2023.46.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, Nancy. 2009. “Conceptual Change: Creativity, Cognition, and Culture.” In Models of Discovery and Creativity, edited by Joke Meheus, and Thomas Nickles, 127–166. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3421-2_8.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, Nancy. 2010. Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, Nancy. 2022. Interdisciplinarity in the Making: Models and Methods in Frontier Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, Thi. 2022. “Playfulness Versus Epistemic Traps.” In Social Virtue Epistemology, edited by Mark Alfano, Colin Klein, and Jeroen de Ridder, 269–290. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, John. 2004. “On Thought Experiments: Is There More to the Argument.” Philosophy of Science 71 (5): 1139–1151. doi:10.1086/425238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panksepp, Jaak. 2004. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, Ellen. 2006. “The Functions of Affect in the Construction of Preferences.” In The Construction of Preference, edited by Sarah Lichtenstein, and Paul Slovic, 454–463. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potochnik, Angela. 2017. Idealization and the Aims of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2021. “On the Narrative Order of Experimentation.” In Narratives and Comparisons: Adversaries or Allies in Understanding Science?, edited by Martin Carrier, Rebecca Mertens, and Carsten Reinhardt, 85–98. Verlag. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2f9xs9f.6.
   Google Scholar
• Ritson, Sophie. 2020. “Probing Novelty at the LHC: Heuristic Appraisal of Disruptive Experimentation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 69 (Feb.): 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2019.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosales, Alirio. 2017. “Theories That Narrate the World: Ronald A. Fisher”s Mass Selection and Sewall Wright’s Shifting Balance.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 62 (Apr.): 22–30. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse, Joseph. 1990. “The Narrative Reconstruction of Science.” Inquiry 33 (2): 179–196. doi:10.1080/00201749008602217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse, Joseph. 2018. “Narrative Reconstruction, Epistemic Significance, and the Temporality of Scientific Practices”. Chap. 6.” In Narrative Reconstruction, Epistemic Significance, and the Temporality of Scientific Practices, 158–178. Cornell University Press. doi:10.7591/9781501718625-008.
   Google Scholar
• Salis, Fiora, and Roman Frigg. 2020. “Capturing the Scientific Imagination.” In The Scientific Imagination, edited by Arnon Levy, and Peter Godfrey-Smith, 17–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093oso/9780190212308.001.0001/oso-9780190212308-chapter-2.
   Google Scholar
• Schickore, Jutta, and Friedrich Steinle. 2006. “Introduction: Revisiting the Context Distinction.” In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, edited by Jutta Schickore, and Friedrich Steinle, 7–19. Archimedes. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4251-5_1.
   Google Scholar
• Siwicki, Kathleen, Paul Hardin, and Jeffrey Price. 2018. “Reflections on Contributing to “Big Discoveries” About the Fly Clock: Our Fortunate Paths as Post-Docs with 2017 Nobel Laureates Jeff Hall, Michael Rosbash, and Mike Young.” Neurobiology of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms 5 (Mar,): 58–67. doi:10.1016/j.nbscr.2018.02.004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sosa, Ernest. 1993. “Proper Functionalism and Virtue Epistemology.” Noûs 27 (1): 51–65. doi:10.2307/2215895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa, Ronald De. 1990. The Rationality of Emotion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stuart, Michael. 2016. “Taming Theory with Thought Experiments: Understanding and Scientific Progress.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 58 (Aug.): 24–33. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.04.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, Michael. 2017. “Imagination: A Sine Qua Non of Science.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 17 (49): 9–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, Michael. 2018. "How Thought Experiments Increase Understanding". In The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments, edited by Michael T. Stuart, Yiftach Fehige, and James Robert Brown, 526–44. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315175027.
   Google Scholar
• Stuart, Michael. 2019a. “Everyday Scientific Imagination: A Qualitative Study of the Uses, Norms, and Pedagogy of Imagination in Science.” Science & Education 28 (6–7): 711–730. doi:10.1007/s11191-019-00067-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, Michael. 2019b. “Towards a Dual Process Epistemology of Imagination.” Synthese 198 (3): 1329–1350. doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02116-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, Michael. 2020a. “The Productive Anarchy of Scientific Imagination.” Philosophy of Science 87 (5): 968–978. doi:10.1086/710629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, Michael. 2020b. “The Material Theory of Induction and the Epistemology of Thought Experiments.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 83 (Oct.): 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.03.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, Emily, and Kareem Khalifa. 2019. “Idealizations and Understanding: Much Ado About Nothing?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (4): 673–689. doi:10.1080/00048402.2018.1564337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaim, Daniel. 2019. “The Roles of Possibility and Mechanism in Narrative Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 86 (5): 858–868. doi:10.1086/705528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swoyer, Chris. 1991. “Structural Representation and Surrogative Reasoning.” Synthese 87 (3): 449–508. doi:10.1007/BF00499820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szigeti, András. 2022. “The Heuristics Theory of Emotions and Moderate Rationalism.” Philosophical Psychology, 1–24. doi:10.1080/09515089.2022.2094232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thagard, Paul. 2002. “The Passionate Scientist: Emotion in Scientific Cognition.” In The Cognitive Basis of Science, edited by Michael Siegal, Peter Carruthers, and Stephen Stich, 235–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511613517.013.
   Google Scholar
• Thagard, Paul. 2006. Hot Thought: Mechanisms and Applications of Emotional Cognition. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass: A Bradford Book.
   Google Scholar
• Thagard, Paul. 2012. “Coherence: The Price Is Right.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1): 42–49. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00091.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thagard, Paul, and Terrence Stewart. 2011. “The AHA! Experience: Creativity Through Emergent Binding in Neural Networks.” Cognitive Science 35 (1): 1–33. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01142.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toon, Adam. 2016. ““Imagination in Scientific Modeling”.” In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Imagination, edited by Amy Kind, 451–462. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Trout, J D. 2002. “Scientific Explanation And The Sense Of Understanding.” Philosophy of Science 69 (2): 212–233. doi:10.1086/341050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trout, J. D. 2007. “The Psychology of Scientific Explanation.” Philosophy Compass 2 (3): 564–591. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00081.x.
   Google Scholar
• Velleman, David. 2003. “Narrative Explanation.” Philosophical Review 112 (Jan.): 1–25. doi:10.1215/00318108-112-1-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willée, Arne. 2019. “Thought Experiments as a Narrative Genre.” In Literature as Thought Experiment?: Perspectives from Philosophy and Literary Studies, edited by Mathis Bornmüller, Falk Franzen, and Johannes Lessau, 83–96. Wilhelm Fink. doi:10.30965/9783846764299_008.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkenfeld, Daniel. 2013. "Understanding as Representation Manipulability". Synthese 190 (6): 997-1016. doi: 10.1007/s11229-011-0055-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolpert, Lewis, and Alison Richards. 1988. A Passion for Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolpert, Lewis, and Alison Richards. 1997. Passionate Minds: The Inner World of Scientists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, Jack. 2018. “Rescuing Objectivity: A Contextualist Proposal.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 48 (4): 385–406. doi:10.1177/0048393118767089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ylikoski, Petri. 2009. “The Illusion of Depth of Understanding in Science.” In Scientific Understanding, edited by Henk W. de Regt, Sabina Leonelli, and Kai Eigner, 100–119. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh press.
   Google Scholar
• Zagzebski, Linda. 1996. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zagzebski, Linda. 2001. “Recovering Understanding.” In Knowledge, Truth, and Duty: Essays on Epistemic Justification, Responsibility, and Virtue, edited by Matthias Steup. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195128923.003.0015.
   Google Scholar
• Zollman, Kevin. 2010. “The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity.” Erkenntnis 72 (1): 17–35. doi:10.1007/s10670-009-9194-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar