@incollection {1104693,
	title = {The intended window of epistemic opportunity: a comment on Miriam Solomon},
	booktitle = {Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II},
	year = {2011},
	publisher = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e}},
	abstract = {<p>In this paper, I argue that Miriam Solomon fails to show that medical consensus conferences, as organised by the National Institute of Health (NIH), miss the intended window of epistemic opportunity (Solomon, 2007: 170), and thus typically take place after the experts have reached consensus. This is done, on the one hand, by differentiating between, what I intend to call, {\textquoteleft}academic{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}non-academic consensus{\textquoteright}, and, on the other hand, by analyzing the arguments and argumentation style Solomon uses to make her claim explicit. At the very least, the overall argument suggests that her statement is inadequately supported, if not that the opposite claim is true. In this manner, I intend to bring additional insight into the notion of {\textquoteleft}consensus{\textquoteright} when applied in scientific practice. Any decision as to change the NIH consensus development program should take these actual achievements into account.</p>},
	author = {Kosolosky, Laszlo},
	editor = {Van Kerkhove, Bart and Libert, Thierry and Vanpaemel, Geert and Marage, Pierre}
}
@incollection {J:clau2,
	title = {Inconsistencies in Scientific Discovery. {C}lausius{\textquoteright}s Remarkable Derivation of {C}arnot{\textquoteright}s Theorem},
	booktitle = {History of Modern Physics. {A}cta of the XXth International Congress of History of Science},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {143{\textendash}154},
	publisher = {Brepols},
	address = {Turnhout (Belgium)},
	author = {Meheus, Joke},
	editor = {Krach, Helghe and Vanpaemel, Geert and Marage, Pierre}
}
