About: Critical Rationalism     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:WrittenWork, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCritical_Rationalism

Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence (1994) is a book on the philosophy of science by the philosopher David Miller. Book reviews include those of John Watkins in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and Michael Redhead in Analytic Philosophy. The book seeks to restate and extend the epistemology of Karl Popper, whose general philosophy has been termed 'critical rationalism'.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Critical Rationalism (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence (1994) is a book on the philosophy of science by the philosopher David Miller. Book reviews include those of John Watkins in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and Michael Redhead in Analytic Philosophy. The book seeks to restate and extend the epistemology of Karl Popper, whose general philosophy has been termed 'critical rationalism'. (en)
foaf:name
  • Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence (en)
name
  • Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
author
caption
  • Cover of the first edition (en)
congress
  • Q175.M629 1994 (en)
country
  • United States (en)
language
  • English (en)
oclc
pages
  • viii, 264 pp. (en)
published
subject
has abstract
  • Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence (1994) is a book on the philosophy of science by the philosopher David Miller. Book reviews include those of John Watkins in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and Michael Redhead in Analytic Philosophy. The book seeks to restate and extend the epistemology of Karl Popper, whose general philosophy has been termed 'critical rationalism'. The book criticizes the use of "good reasons" in general (including evidence supposed to support the excess content of a hypothesis). He argues that good reasons are neither attainable, nor even desirable. Basically, the case, which Miller calls "tediously familiar", is that all arguments purporting to give valid support for a claim are either circular or question-begging. That is, if one provides a valid deductive argument (an inference from premises to a conclusion) for a given claim, then the content of the claim must already be contained within the premises of the argument (if it is not, then the argument is ampliative and so is invalid). Therefore, the claim is already presupposed by the premises, and is no more "supported" than are the assumptions upon which the claim rests, i.e. begging the question. (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
LCC
  • Q175.M629 1994
number of pages
OCLC
  • 94-11205
author
non-fiction subject
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 60 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software