LEADER 04125nam a22005895i 4500
001 806225
003 TR_AnAIT
005 20260127001657
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 130125s2002 ne | s |||| 0|eng d
020 |a9789401700856|9978-94-017-0085-6
024 7 |a10.1007/978-94-017-0085-6|2doi
041 |aeng
049 |aTürk Tarih Kurumu Kütüphanesi
050 4|aQ174-175.3
050 4|aB67
072 7|aPDA|2bicssc
072 7|aSCI075000|2bisacsh
072 7|aPDA|2thema
082 04|a501|223
090 |aDK/7532
245 10|aInconsistency in Science|h[electronic resource] /|cedited by Joke Meheus.
250 |a1st ed. 2002.
264 1|aDordrecht :|bSpringer Netherlands :|bImprint: Springer,|c2002.
300 |aIX, 223 p.|bonline resource.
336 |atext|btxt|2rdacontent
337 |acomputer|bc|2rdamedia
338 |aonline resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
347 |atext file|bPDF|2rda
490 1 |aOrigins: Studies in the Sources of Scientific Creativity ;|v2
505 0 |aFrom Copernicus to Ptolemy: Inconsistency and Method -- Inconsistent Reasoning toward Consistent Theories -- Inconsistencies in the History of Mathematics -- Mathematical Change and Inconsistency -- Approximate Truth -- Inconsistency in Science: A Partial Perspective -- Inconsistency and the Empirical Sciences -- In Defence of a Programme for Handling Inconsistencies -- How to Reason Sensibly yet Naturally from Inconsistencies -- Why the Logic of Explanation is Inconsistency-adaptive -- A Paradox in Newtonian Gravitation Theory II -- Inconsistency, Generic Modeling, and Conceptual Change in Science.
520 |aFor centuries, inconsistencies were seen as a hindrance to good reasoning, and their role in the sciences was ignored. In recent years, however, logicians as well as philosophers and historians have showed a growing interest in the matter. Central to this change were the advent of paraconsistent logics, the shift in attention from finished theories to construction processes, and the recognition that most scientific theories were at some point either internally inconsistent or incompatible with other accepted findings. The new interest gave rise to important questions. How is `logical anarchy' avoided? Is it ever rational to accept an inconsistent theory? In what sense, if any, can inconsistent theories be considered as true? The present collection of papers is the first to deal with this kind of questions. It contains case studies as well as philosophical analyses, and presents an excellent overview of the different approaches in the domain.
532 8 |aAccessibility summary: This PDF is not accessible. It is based on scanned pages and does not support features such as screen reader compatibility or described non-text content (images, graphs etc). However, it likely supports searchable and selectable text based on OCR (Optical Character Recognition). Users with accessibility needs may not be able to use this content effectively. Please contact us at accessibilitysupport@springernature.com if you require assistance or an alternative format.
532 8 |aInaccessible, or known limited accessibility
532 8 |aNo reading system accessibility options actively disabled
532 8 |aPublisher contact for further accessibility information: accessibilitysupport@springernature.com
650 0|aScience|xPhilosophy.
650 0|aHistory.
650 0|aLogic.
650 14|aPhilosophy of Science.
650 24|aHistory.
650 24|aLogic.
700 1 |aMeheus, Joke.|eeditor.|4edt|4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/edt
710 2 |aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 |tSpringer Nature eBook
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9781402006302
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789048160235
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789401700863
830 0|aOrigins: Studies in the Sources of Scientific Creativity ;|v2
856 40|uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0085-6
912 |aZDB-2-SHU
912 |aZDB-2-SXPR
912 |aZDB-2-BAE
950 |aHumanities, Social Sciences and Law (SpringerNature-11648)
950 |aPhilosophy and Religion (R0) (SpringerNature-43725)