📜 Post with us on Reddit
📝 Create a new article
🏭 Create a company page
🇬🇧 - in English
🇫🇷 - en Français (FR)
🇵🇹 - em Português (PT)
🇩🇪 - in Deutsch (DE)
🇯🇵 - 日本語で (JA)
Sponsored articles

You can edit almost every page by Creating an account. Otherwise, see the FAQ.

Empirical limits in science

From EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki


A series of images representing the magnification achieved (as though trying to see a tennis ball on the moon). Starts at top left corner and moves counter−clockwise to eventually end at the top right corner.

The empirical limits in science relate to limits of sensation, perception and conceptualisation amongst human beings.[1] In the philosophy of science, empirical limits define problems with observation, and thus are limits of the human ability to inquire and answer questions about phenomena.[1] These include topics such as, but not limited to, moral values, aesthetic judgements, the future and the supernatural.[2] The empirical limits in science also relate to epistemology when rationalising other ways of attaining knowledge beyond, or in addition to, empiricism.[3]

Definition[edit]

Empiricism in science is the use of the 5 senses to make observations, through experimentation on formulated hypotheses, attempting to find evidence and come to conclusions.[4] Science does not prove but rather supports with empirical evidence and the scientific method allows for repeatability, improvement and replacement of conclusions made.[5] If an observation is made enough times, it may become a Scientific fact which can lose favour if different observations are made.[5] The empirical limits in science relate to the limits of human senses and understanding which affect methods of finding meaningful conclusions.[6]

Limits of sensation[edit]

Empirical scientific discovery relies primarily on the 5 senses: sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste.[7] These senses have upper and lower boundaries beyond which external perception is limited or obsolete.[8] These boundaries differ between organisms but there is an emphasis on human sensory limits in science as human senses are predominantly utilised for scientific discovery.[9][10][11] The empirical limits in science relate to the limits of human sensation.[4]

Sight[edit]

Visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum

Visible light is the range of electromagnetic radiation, which can be perceived by the human eye, which is usually 380-700 nm.[12] The perception of visible light can be inconsistent between human beings, particularly in those with colour-blindness, where individuals have difficulty differentiating between certain colours.[13] The ability to detect contrast is also variable between human beings and this limits the consistency in qualitative findings made by scientists.[14] Visual acuity, colour discrimination and contrast sensitivity decrease with age in human beings.[15]

Electromagnetic radiation beyond visible light is not usually detectable by the human eye and this limits scientific discovery using the human eye alone.[16][17] Scientific devices such as the microscope,[18] infrared spectroscope[16] and Ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer,[17] have enabled increases in visual acuity and increased the range of electromagnetic radiation that can be detected and measured.[16][17] This enables scientists to make observations beyond those possible with the human eye alone.[16][17]

Hearing[edit]

File:EarAnatomy SYNCHRONY DLCoil RW.jpg
Image of cochlear implant and inner ear anatomy

The audible spectrum in humans is between 20 Hz and 20000 Hz; sounds outside of this range are not usually detected by the human ear.[8] The frequencies of sound which can be heard also depend on the amplitude (loudness) of sound produced and adequate functioning of the human ear.[19] The upper limit of audible frequency detectable decreases with age.[8] Some sounds may be perceived initially but can initiate progressive degradation of the human ear causing them not to be perceived in later tests.[20] Sounds may be perceivable by the ear but at a loudness level which causes discomfort limiting the amplitude of sound experimented with in scientific investigations.[21]

For individuals with hearing impairments, devices such as the cochlear implant have enabled the preservation and restoration of hearing.[22] This preservation of hearing enables individuals with hearing difficulties to make observations and contribute to scientific discovery. The issue of discomfort or progressive hearing loss caused by loud sound is controlled by circuits built within the cochlea implant which stop the projection of sound past 130 dB.[21] For the purpose of scientific discovery the use of hearing aids improves[22][21] hearing in human beings with hearing difficulties, rather than extending the range of frequencies detectable.[21]

Touch[edit]

The ability to feel the precise nature of touch on the body is known as tactile acuity.[23] Tactile acuity differs between parts of the body and amongst individuals. The threshold of tactile acuity is dependent on the site of the body being used (to touch) and the number and size of receptive fields in that region of the body.[24] With aging comes a decrease in human tactile acuity.[25] Tactile acuity is closely related to visual perception.[26][27] Individuals with partial loss of visual perception or whose visual perception is interrupted have difficulties correlating tactile acuity and actions conducted by their own body.[28] The nature of senses such as touch being linked to other senses demonstrates that a limit to one sense may limit other senses as in the case of sight and touch.[27][28][29]

Smell[edit]

Sagittal section of nose and nasal cavity

As with the other senses, olfaction differs amongst human beings.[30] The threshold of olfaction is the smallest amount of odorant which can be smelt by the human nose.[30] A common stance from the 19th century is that human beings have poor olfaction compared to other mammals.[31] This idea was based on the hypothesis that evolution of modern human beings caused a reduction in the brain’s olfactory bulb.[31] The olfactory bulb is relatively large, in humans, when compared to other mammals and it is predicted that humans can detect over one trillion odours.[32]

The way to describe different smells is shown to be limited through tests in the English language. This is not necessarily the case in other languages which may even incorporate odour into the grammar of the language.[33]

Taste[edit]

Histological (Eosin stained) image of tastebuds of the tongue

The sense of taste is not used in all scientific investigations, generally due to its inapplicability to the aims of the experiment being conducted or as a safety precaution.[34] Taste is a sense which has been investigated to a lesser extent compared to the other human senses.[35] Differences in taste sensitivity in human beings could be because of variations in the number of taste buds present on the human tongue.[36]

Scientiifc investigations within the food and beverage industry use the sense of taste to maintain quality control, edibility and customer satisfaction.[37][38]Taste can be described qualitatively but can also be measured quantitatively using methods such as chemogustometry on a scale where taste is described as "sweet, salty, sour [or] bitter";[39] some grading scales also add "umami."[40] Due the risk of utilising taste in scientific investigations, scientists look to chemical methods of testing how human like cells will react with chemicals manufactured for consumption.[41][42] The limitation of using in vitro models is that they do not replicate the interactions of all types of cells within the human body.[41][42]

Perceptual limitations[edit]

Perceptual limitations relate to the constrained knowledge gained due to the perspective taken by individuals when an observation is made.[6][43] Empirical scientific discovery is subject to perceptual limitations.[44] A philosophical internalist may disagree with the notion that perception is a limitation as an internalist would believe perception is something which is internally derived rather than externally influenced.[45] For empirical scientific discovery, perception is considered external or extrinsic and detached from prior knowledge or conceptualisation.[46] According to empirical science something perceived, exists and can be isolated or observed indirectly.[46] When something is perceived it can lead to conclusions which change with changing perceptions.[5]

Image of Ptolemy; a 2nd century AD astronomer who believed in geocentricism

Geocentricism[edit]

Main article: Geocentric model

Until the late 16th Century it was believed, amongst western astronomers such as Ptolemy, that the sun and moon orbited the earth.[47] The main observations which lead to this geocentric model were the perception of an unmoving earth and the observance of both sun and moon once a day.[47] Before the 16th century, there were other astronomers such as Aristarchus of Samos who believed in a heliocentric model in which the earth orbits the sun.[48] From the late 16th century onwards, with observations such as the orbit of Mars following technological advancements, the predominant position was changed and a heliocentric model was widely accepted in the west.[43]

Tactile illusions[edit]

The sense of touch can be deceived in tests where a rubber hand is positioned in place of an individual’s real hand; one hand is still visible while the other is hidden outside of the person’s view.[49][50] In these Visio-tactile investigations the closer the rubber hand gets to the individual the more likely it is to elicit a perceived sensation when touched synergistically with the individuals uncovered hand.[50] Tests like the rubber hand illusion demonstrate the limits of tactile perception which could influence empirical scientific discovery.[49][50][51]

Conceptual limitations[edit]

There are scientific concepts that cross many specialties, such as gravity, genes, cells and evolution, which can be different in conceptualisation depending on the specialist being consulted.[52] For example, the gene concept is one such common idea which can be thought of both at a molecular level (genotypically) and through its apparent effect (phenotypically). In one study, a group of evolutionary biologists were asked to complete a series of tasks involving the gene concept which they preferred doing using the genotypic conceptualisation of the gene.[52] [53]A separate group of molecular biologists were asked to perform the same tasks and they preferred completing them utilising the phenotypic conceptualisation of the gene.[52][53] This investigation demonstrated that a difference in the conceptualisation of the same concept can exist amongst scientists.[53]

In the 21st Century largely due to globalisation, it is easier for cross-specialist discussion promoting common understanding of various concepts.[54]

Epistemology and science[edit]

The empirical limits in science also relate to epistemology: the use of various methods to find knowledge or meaning.[55]

Schools of thought, such as rationalism, argue that scientific conclusions can be made without the use of empiricism.[3] Rationalism proposes that human beings can follow premises despite not having complete knowledge of topics being discussed; known as deductive reasoning.[56] An example of deductive reasoning is:

“All men are mortal; Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal”[57]

Empiricism is not used to conclude “Socrates is mortal”,[57] nor is experimentation, or prior knowledge. 21st Century understandings and practices of ethics follow reasoning and logical ideas, arguing that conclusions can be made by following logical principles without the need of, or in addition to empiricism.[3] Scientist may make conclusions based on similar deductive principles[58] while they may hypothesise based on prior knowledge,[59] in both instances without using empiricism alone.[58][59]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Gherdjikov, Serghey Stoilov (1998), "The Limits of Science", The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Philosophy Documentation Center, pp. 80–87, retrieved 2022-05-07
  2. ↑ William Harris (14 January 2008). "Limitations of the Scientific Method". How Stuff Works. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Markie, Peter; Folescu, M. (2004-08-19). "Rationalism vs. Empiricism".
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Aveling, F. (1933). "The Status of Psychology as an Empirical Science". Nature. 132 (3344): 841–843. Bibcode:1933Natur.132..841A. doi:10.1038/132841a0. ISSN 0028-0836. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 MEYNELL, HUGO (1975). "Science, the Truth, and Thomas Kuhn". Mind. LXXXIV (1): 79–93. doi:10.1093/mind/lxxxiv.1.79. ISSN 0026-4423.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Margenau, Henry (1955). "The Competence and Limitations of Scientific Method". Journal of the Operations Research Society of America. 3 (2): 135–146. doi:10.1287/opre.3.2.135. ISSN 0096-3984.
  7. ↑ Aveling, F. (1933). "The Status of Psychology as an Empirical Science". Nature. 132 (3344): 841–843. Bibcode:1933Natur.132..841A. doi:10.1038/132841a0. ISSN 0028-0836. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Deuchars, Sue; Deuchars, Jim (1998-12-12). <871::aid-bies15>3.0.co;2-f "Neuroscience-a novelty for the nervous: Neuroscience (1997). Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, Katz LC, LaMantia A-S, McNamara JO (Eds). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. 562 pp". BioEssays. 20 (10): 871–872. doi:10.1002/(sici)1521-1878(199810)20:10<871::aid-bies15>3.0.co;2-f. ISSN 0265-9247.
  9. ↑ de Balbian, Ulrich (2021). "Consciousness Again". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3818726. ISSN 1556-5068.
  10. ↑ Keeley, Brian L. (2002). "Making Sense of the Senses". Journal of Philosophy. 99 (1): 5–28. doi:10.5840/jphil20029915. ISSN 0022-362X.
  11. ↑ Macpherson, Fiona (2010-10-30). "Taxonomising the senses". Philosophical Studies. 153 (1): 123–142. doi:10.1007/s11098-010-9643-8. ISSN 0031-8116.
  12. ↑ "Visible Light". 30 March 2022. Retrieved 30 March 2022. Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (help)
  13. ↑ Gordon, N (1998). "Colour blindness". Public Health. 112 (2): 81–84. doi:10.1016/S0033-3506(98)00590-3. PMID 9581449.
  14. ↑ Amesbury, Eric C.; Schallhorn, Steven C. (2003). "Contrast Sensitivity and Limits of Vision". International Ophthalmology Clinics. 43 (2): 31–42. doi:10.1097/00004397-200343020-00006. ISSN 0020-8167. PMID 12711901. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  15. ↑ HAEGERSTROM-PORTNOY, GUNILLA; SCHNECK, MARILYN E.; BRABYN, JOHN A. (1999). "Seeing into Old Age: Vision Function Beyond Acuity". Optometry and Vision Science. 76 (3): 141–158. doi:10.1097/00006324-199903000-00014. ISSN 1040-5488. PMID 10213444.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Ng, Lily M.; Simmons, Reiko (1999-05-20). "Infrared Spectroscopy". Analytical Chemistry. 71 (12): 343–350. doi:10.1021/a1999908r. ISSN 0003-2700. PMID 10384791.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 Yacynych, Alexander M.; Mark, Harry B. (1976). "Automatic Absorbance Calibration Routine for a Computerized Uv-Visible Rapid Scanning Spectrophotometer". Instrumentation Science & Technology. 7 (4): 295–300. Bibcode:1976IS&T....7..295Y. doi:10.1080/10739147608543432. ISSN 1073-9149.
  18. ↑ Eichenberger, M; Perrin, P; Ramseyer, S T; Lussi, A (2015-06-01). "Visual Acuity and Experience with Magnification Devices in Swiss Dental Practices". Operative Dentistry. 40 (4): E142–E149. doi:10.2341/14-103-c. ISSN 1559-2863. PMID 25748209.
  19. ↑ Pumphrey, R. J. (1950). "Upper Limit of Frequency for Human Hearing". Nature. 166 (4222): 571. Bibcode:1950Natur.166..571P. doi:10.1038/166571b0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 14780156. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  20. ↑ Nadol, Joseph B. (1993-10-07). "Hearing Loss". New England Journal of Medicine. 329 (15): 1092–1102. doi:10.1056/NEJM199310073291507. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 8371732.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 Heide, Jorgen (1980). "Output Limitation/Compression". Seminars in Hearing. 1 (03): 267–274. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1095204. ISSN 0734-0451.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Zeng, Fan-Gang (2004). "Trends in Cochlear Implants". Trends in Amplification. 8 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1177/108471380400800102. ISSN 1084-7138. PMC 4111484. PMID 15247993.
  23. ↑ Morf, Rita; Pfeiffer, Fabian; Hotz-Boendermaker, Sabina; Meichtry, André; Luomajoki, Hannu (2021). "Prediction and trend of tactile acuity, pain and disability in acute LBP: a six-month prospective cohort study". BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 22 (1): 666. doi:10.1186/s12891-021-04530-z. ISSN 1471-2474. PMC 8351169 Check |pmc= value (help). PMID 34372820 Check |pmid= value (help).
  24. ↑ Haggard, Patrick; Christakou, Anastasia; Serino, Andrea (2007-06-01). "Viewing the body modulates tactile receptive fields". Experimental Brain Research. 180 (1): 187–193. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-0971-7. ISSN 0014-4819. PMID 17508208. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  25. ↑ Stevens, Joseph C.; Alvarez-Reeves, Marty; Dipietro, Loretta; Mack, Gary W.; Green, Barry G. (2003). "Decline of tactile acuity in aging: a study of body site, blood flow, and lifetime habits of smoking and physical activity". Somatosensory & Motor Research. 20 (3–4): 271–279. doi:10.1080/08990220310001622997. ISSN 0899-0220. PMID 14675966. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  26. ↑ Press, Clare; Taylor-Clarke, Marisa; Kennett, Steffan; Haggard, Patrick (2004-01-01). "Visual enhancement of touch in spatial body representation". Experimental Brain Research. 154 (2): 238–245. doi:10.1007/s00221-003-1651-x. ISSN 0014-4819.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Spence, Charles; Nicholls, Michael E. R.; Gillespie, Nicole; Driver, Jon (1998). "Cross-modal links in exogenous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision". Perception & Psychophysics. 60 (4): 544–557. doi:10.3758/bf03206045. ISSN 0031-5117.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Sirigu, A. (1999-10-01). "Perception of self-generated movement following left parietal lesion". Brain. 122 (10): 1867–1874. doi:10.1093/brain/122.10.1867. ISSN 1460-2156.
  29. ↑ Kennett, Steffan; Eimer, Martin; Spence, Charles; Driver, Jon (2001). "Tactile-Visual Links in Exogenous Spatial Attention under Different Postures: Convergent Evidence from Psychophysics and ERPs". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 13 (4): 462–478. doi:10.1162/08989290152001899. ISSN 0898-929X.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Rabin, Michael D.; Cain, William S. (1986). "Determinants of measured olfactory sensitivity". Perception & Psychophysics. 39 (4): 281–286. doi:10.3758/BF03204936. ISSN 0031-5117. PMID 3737357. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 McGann, John P. (2017-05-12). "Poor human olfaction is a 19th-century myth". Science. 356 (6338): eaam7263. doi:10.1126/science.aam7263. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 5512720. PMID 28495701.
  32. ↑ Bushdid, C.; Magnasco, M. O.; Vosshall, L. B.; Keller, A. (2014-03-21). "Humans Can Discriminate More than 1 Trillion Olfactory Stimuli". Science. 343 (6177): 1370–1372. Bibcode:2014Sci...343.1370B. doi:10.1126/science.1249168. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 4483192. PMID 24653035.
  33. ↑ Majid, Asifa (2021). "Human Olfaction at the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Biology". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 25 (2): 111–123. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.005. PMID 33349546 Check |pmid= value (help). Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  34. ↑ Ross, Paula T.; Bibler Zaidi, Nikki L. (2019). "Limited by our limitations". Perspectives on Medical Education. 8 (4): 261–264. doi:10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x. ISSN 2212-2761. PMC 6684501 Check |pmc= value (help). PMID 31347033.
  35. ↑ Mouritsen, Ole G (2015). "The science of taste". Flavour. 4 (1): 18. doi:10.1186/s13411-014-0028-3. ISSN 2044-7248. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  36. ↑ Miller, Inglis J.; Reedy, Frank E. (1990). "Variations in human taste bud density and taste intensity perception". Physiology & Behavior. 47 (6): 1213–1219. doi:10.1016/0031-9384(90)90374-D. PMID 2395927. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  37. ↑ Song, Hyun Seok; Kwon, Oh Seok; Lee, Sang Hun; Park, Seon Joo; Kim, Un-Kyung; Jang, Jyongsik; Park, Tai Hyun (2012-12-05). "Human Taste Receptor-Functionalized Field Effect Transistor as a Human-Like Nanobioelectronic Tongue". Nano Letters. 13 (1): 172–178. doi:10.1021/nl3038147. ISSN 1530-6984.
  38. ↑ Bell, Graham A.; Parr, Wendy V. (2015-06-04), "Olfaction and Taste in the Food and Beverage Industries", Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation, Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 1049–1066, retrieved 2022-05-26
  39. ↑ Naik, Chetana; Claussen, C.-F. (2010). "Qualitative and Quantitative Representation of Taste Disturbances: How We Do It by Pentagon Chart". Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery. 62 (4): 376–380. doi:10.1007/s12070-010-0060-2. ISSN 0019-5421.
  40. ↑ Sheridan, Cormac (2004). "A taste of the future". Nature Biotechnology. 22 (10): 1203–1205. doi:10.1038/nbt1004-1203. ISSN 1087-0156.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 Song, Hyun Seok; Kwon, Oh Seok; Lee, Sang Hun; Park, Seon Joo; Kim, Un-Kyung; Jang, Jyongsik; Park, Tai Hyun (2012-12-05). "Human Taste Receptor-Functionalized Field Effect Transistor as a Human-Like Nanobioelectronic Tongue". Nano Letters. 13 (1): 172–178. doi:10.1021/nl3038147. ISSN 1530-6984.
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 Riedel, K.; Sombroek, D.; Fiedler, B.; Siems, K.; Krohn, M. (2017). "Human cell-based taste perception – a bittersweet job for industry". Natural Product Reports. 34 (5): 484–495. doi:10.1039/C6NP00123H. ISSN 0265-0568.
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 Bussard, Alain E. (2005). "A scientific revolution?: The prion anomaly may challenge the central dogma of molecular biology". EMBO Reports. 6 (8): 691–694. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400497. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 1369155. PMID 16065057.
  44. ↑ Levelt, Willem J.M. (2020-01-29), "Some Perceptual Limitations on Talking About Space", Limits in Perception, CRC Press, pp. 323–358, doi:10.1201/9780367813819-15, ISBN 9780367813819, retrieved 2022-04-30 Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  45. ↑ Gow, Laura (2016-10-01). "The Limitations of Perceptual Transparency". The Philosophical Quarterly. 66 (265): 723–744. doi:10.1093/pq/pqw018. ISSN 0031-8094.
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Efron, Robert (1969), "What is Perception?", Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 137–173, ISBN 978-94-010-3380-0, retrieved 2022-05-14
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Hellman, C. Doris (1957). "Thomas S. Kuhn. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought". Renaissance News. 10 (4): 217–220. doi:10.2307/2858068. ISSN 0277-903X. JSTOR 2858068.
  48. ↑ Heath, T. L. (1921). "The Copernicus of Antiquity (Aristarchus of Samos)". The American Mathematical Monthly. 28 (8/9): 312. doi:10.2307/2971786. hdl:2027/uc1.$b278218. ISSN 0002-9890. JSTOR 2971786.
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 Pavani, Francesco; Zampini, Massimiliano (2007). "The Role of Hand Size in the Fake-Hand Illusion Paradigm". Perception. 36 (10): 1547–1554. doi:10.1068/p5853. ISSN 0301-0066.
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 Aimola Davies, Anne M.; White, Rebekah C.; Davies, Martin (2013). "Spatial limits on the nonvisual self-touch illusion and the visual rubber hand illusion: Subjective experience of the illusion and proprioceptive drift". Consciousness and Cognition. 22 (2): 613–636. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.03.006. ISSN 1053-8100.
  51. ↑ Schütz-Bosbach, Simone; Tausche, Peggy; Weiss, Carmen (2009). "Roughness perception during the rubber hand illusion". Brain and Cognition. 70 (1): 136–144. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.006.
  52. ↑ 52.0 52.1 52.2 Arabatzis, Theodore (2019-06-11), "What Are Scientific Concepts?", What Is Scientific Knowledge?, Routledge, pp. 85–99, doi:10.4324/9780203703809-6, ISBN 978-0-203-70380-9, retrieved 2022-04-30 Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 53.2 Stotz, Karola; Griffiths, Paul E.; Knight, Rob (2004). "How biologists conceptualize genes: an empirical study". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 35 (4): 647–673. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.09.005.
  54. ↑ Hoekman, J (2012). Science in an age of globalisation : the geography of research collaboration and its effect on scientific publishing. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. OCLC 1028701453. Search this book on
  55. ↑ Steup, Matthias; Neta, Ram (2005-12-14). "Epistemology".
  56. ↑ Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). "Deductive Reasoning". Annual Review of Psychology. 50 (1): 109–135. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.109. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 15012459.
  57. ↑ 57.0 57.1 Kelsen, Hans (1973), "On the Practical Syllogism", Essays in Legal and Moral Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 257–260, doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2653-6_12, ISBN 978-94-010-2655-0, retrieved 2022-04-30
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 Lawson, Anton E. (2000). "The Generality of Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning: Making Scientific Thinking Explicit". The American Biology Teacher. 62 (7): 482–495. doi:10.2307/4450956. ISSN 0002-7685.
  59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 Hagmayer, York; Sloman, Steven; Lagnado, David; Waldmann, Michael R. (2007-04-26), "Causal Reasoning Through Intervention", Causal Learning, Oxford University Press, pp. 86–100, retrieved 2022-05-26


This article "Empirical limits in science" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Empirical limits in science. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.


Retrieved from "https://en.everybodywiki.com/index.php?title=Empirical_limits_in_science&oldid=2720290"
License CC BY-SA 3.0
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki