9789027710949 - Galileo and the Art of Reasoning: Rhetorical Foundation of Logic and Scientific Method (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, 61, Band 61) von Fi... (6 Ergebnisse)

Zustand: Good. Volume 61. This is an ex-library book and may have the usual library/used-book markings inside.This book has hardback covers. In good all round condition. No dust jacket. Please note the Image in this listing is a stock photo and may not match the covers of the actual item,950grams, ISBN:9027710945.

Zustand: Fine. Zustand des Schutzumschlags: Very Good. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1980. First Edition. Octavo (22.5cm); publisher's cloth in grey and white printed dust jacket; xx,478pp. A few tiny chips at jacket margins, spine a shade toned, else a Fine copy in Very Good jacket. Issued as the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 61.

Org.-Paperback. Oktav (15 x 22 cm). XX, 478 S., 2 Bll., Einband etwa lichtrandig, sonst einwandfrei. [=Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science; 61]. - ISBN 9027710945. - Aus dem Besitz des holländischen Essayisten Michaël Zeeman (1958-2009) und mit dessen dezentem handschriftlichen Namenszug auf dem Titelblatt. - Publisher's paperback. Octavo. xx, 478 pp., 2 f., binding with some minor discolouring, else fine. - From the library of the Dutch writer and journalist Michaël Zeeman (1958-2009) and with his neatly handwritten owner's entry on title page. [=Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science; 61]. - ISBN 9027710945. - Aus dem Besitz des holländischen Essayisten Michaël Zeeman (1958-2009) und mit dessen dezentem handschriftlichen Namenszug auf dem Titelblatt. - Publisher's paperback. Octavo. xx, 478 pp., 2 f., binding with some minor discolouring, else fine. - From the library of the Dutch writer and journalist Michaël Zeeman (1958-2009) and with his neatly handwritten owner's entry on title page. 1001 g.

Zustand: New. In.

Zustand: Sehr gut. Zustand: Sehr gut | Seiten: 506 | Sprache: Englisch | Produktart: Bücher | The work of Galileo has long been important not only as a foundation of modern physics but also as a model - and perhaps the paradigmatic model - of scientific method, and therefore as a leading example of scientific rationality. However, as we know, the matter is not so simple. The range of Galileo readings is so varied that one may be led to the conclusion that it is a case of chacun a son Galileo; that here, as with the Bible, or Plato or Kant or Freud or Finnegan's Wake, the texts themselves underdetermine just what moral is to be pointed. But if there is no canonical reading, how can the texts be taken as evidence or example of a canonical view of scientific rationality, as in Galileo? Or is it the case, instead, that we decide a priori what the norms of rationality are and then pick through texts to fmd those which satisfy these norms? Specifically, how and on what grounds are we to accept or reject scientific theories, or scientific reasoning? If we are to do this on the basis of historical analysis of how, in fact, theories came to be accepted or rejected, how shall we distinguish 'is' from 'ought'? What follows (if anything does) from such analysis or reconstruction about how theories ought to be accepted or rejected? Maurice Finocchiaro's study of Galileo brings an important and original approach to the question of scientific rationality by way of a systematic read­.

Buch. Zustand: Neu. Druck auf Anfrage Neuware - Printed after ordering - The work of Galileo has long been important not only as a foundation of modern physics but also as a model - and perhaps the paradigmatic model - of scientific method, and therefore as a leading example of scientific rationality. However, as we know, the matter is not so simple. The range of Galileo readings is so varied that one may be led to the conclusion that it is a case of chacun a son Galileo; that here, as with the Bible, or Plato or Kant or Freud or Finnegan's Wake, the texts themselves underdetermine just what moral is to be pointed. But if there is no canonical reading, how can the texts be taken as evidence or example of a canonical view of scientific rationality, as in Galileo Or is it the case, instead, that we decide a priori what the norms of rationality are and then pick through texts to fmd those which satisfy these norms Specifically, how and on what grounds are we to accept or reject scientific theories, or scientific reasoning If we are to do this on the basis of historical analysis of how, in fact, theories came to be accepted or rejected, how shall we distinguish 'is' from 'ought' What follows (if anything does) from such analysis or reconstruction about how theories ought to be accepted or rejected Maurice Finocchiaro's study of Galileo brings an important and original approach to the question of scientific rationality by way of a systematic read.