Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Since the earliest days of science, dissent and disagreement have driven its progress. Galileo’s defiance of the geocentric consensus was invaluable for science’s advance. Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr’s disagreements over the interpretation of quantum mechanics generated many fruitful insights. Yet not all disagreement is scientifically valuable. Science denialism – the rejection of well-established claims – is currently on the rise.
Philosophy of Science (forthcoming) Copy BIBTEX In light of recent criticisms by Woodward (2017) and Rescorla (2018), we examine the relationship between mechanistic explanation and phenomenological laws. We disambiguate several uses of the phrase “phenomenological law” and show how a mechanistic theory of explanation sorts them into those that are and are not explanatory.
Permissions: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu to use this work in a way not covered by the license. For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy. Abstract Many humanists and social scientists argue—if not assume—that race's centrality in social-scientific research provides an empirical justification for its reality as a constructed kind.
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
