(See, for instance, Laudan 1981 and Fine 1984.)
The contemporary realist view, however, was refined by the critiques of van Fraassen, Laudan, and Fine.
Laudan 1981, Nelson 1994, Fine 1996, Kukla 2000).
Wray (2015: 65) interprets the original argument by Laudan as being deductive.
Some however have argued that the values present are merely epistemic values (Laudan 1986).
This question is urgent especially if we acknowledge that standards of good science have changed in history (Laudan 1984a).
Laudan requires that a rational goal for science should be accessible and effectively recognizable (Laudan 1977, 1984a).
The schema focuses on the reasoning processes by which an exploratory hypothesis is assessed in terms of its merits and promise (Laudan 1980; Schaffner 1993).
Hence, if the objections of people like Laudan were taken seriously, the Creationists might have a case to make for the balanced treatment of evolution and Creationism.
Attempts to define what we today call science have a long history, and the roots of the demarcation problem have sometimes been traced back to Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics (Laudan 1983).
The debate between Laudan and Worrall over the value of a fixed methodology of science wonderfully exemplifies the persistence of the ancient problem of change (Laudan 1989; Worrall 1989).
The temporality of his account led Laudan to introduce an important distinction between acceptance of a theory and pursuit that would explain how rational transitions to a new research tradition are possible.
Critics of this decision-theoretic approach, such as Laudan (2006), argue that it’s difficult or impossible to bridge the gap between the evidence admissible in court, and the real probability of the defendant’s guilt.
The most famous history-based argument against realism, issued by Larry Laudan (1981), was meant to show how the explanatory link between success and truthlikeness is undermined by taking seriously the history of science.
The American philosopher Larry Laudan tried to show how it is possible to think of scientific progress in terms of “problem solving,” and he offered a methodology of science based on the assessment of problem-solving success.
It has even been maintained that “no serious twentieth-century methodologist” has ever subscribed to the naïve HD view above “without crucial qualifications” (Laudan 1990, 278; also see Laudan and Leplin 1991, 466).
as far as Laudan is concerned, a single successful theory that is false would falsify the realist claim that (all) successful theories are true; and a single successful theory that refers to a non-existent type of entity would falsify the realist claim that (all) successful theories have genuinely referring theoretical terms.
Shan gives up the typical Kuhn-Laudan assumption that the scientific community is able to know whether it makes progress or not, and is open to the introduction of the notions of know-how and perspectival truth, so that his “new functional approach” is a compromise with what Bird (2007) calls the “epistemic view” of progress.
The “Battle of the Big Systems” of the 1960s and ‘70s, involving historicists such as Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, and Larry Laudan, eventually gave way to a realist reaction, as many philosophers rejected the perceived skepticism and potential relativism of the historicist movement, now reinforced by new-wave sociology of science.
Since the relevant utilities depend on the individual circumstances, such as the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment, the decision-theoretic account of the standard of proof would seem, on both the simple and the modified version, to lead to the conclusion that the probabilistic threshold should vary from case to case (Lillquist 2002; Bartels 1981; Laudan and Saunders 2009).
On this page, there are 20 sentence examples for Laudan. They are all from high-quality sources and constantly processed by lengusa's machine learning routines.
Just use the " " button to fragment sentence examples and start your learning flow.
Example output from one of your searches:
Since the relevant utilities depend on the individual circumstances such as the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment the decision-theoretic account of the standard of proof would seem on both the simple and the modified version to lead to the conclusion that the probabilistic threshold should vary from case to case Lillquist 2002 Bartels 1981 Laudan and Saunders 2009