@article {4265612, title = {The role of unification in micro-explanations of physical laws}, journal = {Theoria - revista de teoria historia y fundamentos de la ciencia}, volume = {79}, year = {2014}, pages = {41{\textendash}56}, abstract = {

In the literature on scientific explanation, there is a classical distinction between explanations of particular facts and explanations of laws. This paper is about explanations of laws, more specifically about microexplanations of laws in physics. We investigate whether providing unificatory information has a surplus value in micro-explanations of physical laws. Unificatory information is information that provides ontological unification in the sense defined by Uskali M{\"a}ki. We argue that providing unificatory information may lead to explanations with more explanatory power (we use Jim Woodward’s concept of explanatory power for that) and that it may lead to more strongly supported explanations.

}, issn = {0495-4548}, author = {Weber, Erik and Lefevere, Merel} } @article {2079125, title = {Rationality and irrationality in the history of continental drift: was the hypothesis of continental drift worthy of pursuit?}, journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science}, volume = {43}, number = {1}, year = {2012}, pages = {147{\textendash}159}, abstract = {

The revolution in geology, initiated with Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift, has been the subject of many philosophical discussions aiming at resolving the problem of rationality underlying this historical episode. Even though the debate included analyses in terms of scientific methodology, applications of concrete accounts of epistemic justification to this case study have been rare. In particular, the question as to whether Wegener’s theory was epistemically worthy of pursuit in the first half of the twentieth century, that is, in its early development, remained open or inadequately addressed. The aim of this paper is to offer an answer to this question. The evaluation of Drift will be done by means of an account of theory evaluation suitable for the context of pursuit, developed in \&\#353;e\&\#353;elja and Stra\&\#223;er (accepted for publication). We will argue that pursuing the theory of continental drift was rational, i.e., that it was irrational to reject its pursuit as unworthy

}, issn = {0039-3681}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.11.005}, author = {{\v S}e{\v s}elja, Dunja and Weber, Erik} } @article {3063631, title = {Rationally evaluating inconsistent theories}, journal = {PHILOSOPHICA}, volume = {86}, year = {2012}, pages = {83{\textendash}99}, abstract = {

What happens if one applies the "evaluation methodology" of The Kuipers to inconsistent theories? What happens if one applies the "problem solving methodology" of Larry Laudan to inconsistent theories? We argue that in both cases something unacceptable happens. We show that application of Kuipers{\textquoteright} methodology to inconsistent theories leads to a methodological stalemate: inconsistent theories are incomparable to consistent ones. Then we show that according to Laudan{\textquoteright}s methodology inconsistent theories are always better than consistent ones. Finally, we offer partial solutins to these problems.

}, issn = {0379-8402}, author = {Weber, Erik and Van Dyck, Maarten} } @proceedings {1856691, title = {The role of unification in explanations of facts}, journal = {EPSA Philosophy of Science 2009}, year = {2012}, pages = {403-413}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Amsterdam}, abstract = {

In the literature on scientific explanation, there is a classical distinction between explanations of facts and explanations of laws. This paper is about explanations of facts. Our aim is to analyse the role of unification in explanations of this kind. We discuss five positions with respect to this role, argue for two of them and refute the three others.

}, isbn = {9789400724037}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2404-4\_33}, author = {Weber, Erik and Van Bouwel, Jeroen and Lefevere, Merel}, editor = {De Regt, Henk and Okasha, Samir and Hartmann, Stephan} } @incollection {Urbaniak2008, title = {Reasoning with dynamic conceptual frames.}, booktitle = {Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days 2008}, year = {2009}, pages = {84-89}, publisher = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e}}, address = {Brussel}, author = {Urbaniak, Rafal}, editor = {Weber, Erik and Libert, Thierry and Marage, Pierre and Vanpaemel, Geert} } @article {1092888, title = {Regiomontanus and Chinese mathematics}, journal = {PHILOSOPHICA}, volume = {82}, number = {2}, year = {2008}, pages = {87{\textendash}114}, abstract = {

This paper critically assesses the claim by Gavin Menzies that Regiomontanus knew about the Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT) through the Sh{\`u} sh\={u} Ji\v{u} zh\={a}ng (SSJZ) written in 1247. Menzies uses this among many others arguments for his controversial theory that a large fleet of Chinese vessels visited Italy in the first half of the 15th century. We first refute that Regiomontanus used the method from the SSJZ. CRT problems appear in earlier European arithmetic and can be solved by the method of the Sun Zi, as did Fibonacci. Secondly, we pro-vide evidence that remainder problems were treated within the European abbaco tradition independently of the CRT method. Finally, we discuss the role of recre-ational mathematics for the oral dissemination of sub-scientific knowledge.

}, issn = {0379-8402}, author = {Heeffer, Albrecht}, editor = {Weber, Erik} } @article {weber2008reply, title = {Reply to Daniel Steel{\textquoteright}s “With or Without Mechanisms”}, journal = {Philosophy of the social sciences}, volume = {38}, number = {2}, year = {2008}, pages = {267{\textendash}270}, abstract = {

In this discussion note I clarify the motivation behind my original paper “Social Mechanisms, Causal Inference and the Policy Relevance of Social Science.” I argue that one of the tasks of philosophers of social science is to draw attention to methodological problems that are often forgotten or overlooked. Then I show that my original paper does not make the mistake or fallacy that Daniel Steel suggests in his comment on it.

}, doi = {10.1177/0048393108315559}, author = {Weber, Erik} } @article {VanBouwel2002, title = {Remote Causes, Bad Explanations?}, journal = {The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour}, volume = {32}, year = {2002}, pages = {437-449}, doi = {10.1111/1468-5914.00197}, author = {Van Bouwel, Jeroen and Weber, Erik} } @article {386238, title = {Rationality in the Discovery of Empirical Laws}, journal = {Foundations of Science}, volume = {4}, year = {1999}, pages = {355{\textendash}368}, abstract = {

In this paper I argue against the traditional viewthat in discovery processes there is no place forrational decisions. First I argue that some historicalprocesses in which an empirical law was developed,were rational. Second, I identify some of themethodological rules that we can follow in order to berational when constructing an empirical law. Finally,I argue that people who deny that scientific discoverycan be rational do not understand the nature ofmethodological rules.

}, issn = {1233-1821}, doi = {10.1023/A:1009600614510}, author = {Weber, Erik} } @incollection {248905, title = {Realism and scientific explanations}, booktitle = {The Many Problems of Realism}, year = {1995}, pages = {43{\textendash}57}, publisher = {Tilburg University Press}, author = {Weber, Erik}, editor = {Cortois, Paul} } @article {WE_Rf, title = {Review of {R}. {F}ranck (red.) {\textquoteright}{F}aut-il chercher aux causes une raison? {L}{\textquoteright}explication causale dans les sciences humaines{\textquoteright} ({L}yon, {I}nstitut {I}nterdisciplinaire d{\textquoteright}{E}tudes {E}pist{\'e}mologiques)}, journal = {Philosophica}, volume = {54}, year = {1995}, pages = {145{\textendash}146}, author = {Weber, Erik} } @article {WE_Rc, title = {Review of Werner Callebaut, {\textquoteright}Taking the naturalistic turn{\textquoteright} ({U}niversity of {C}hicago {P}ress)}, journal = {Philosophica}, volume = {53}, year = {1993}, pages = {123{\textendash}124}, author = {Weber, Erik} }