@conference {de_winter_distorted_2010,
	title = {The Distorted Research Agenda in the Health Sciences and James Robert Browns Policy Proposal.},
	booktitle = {Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II},
	year = {2010},
	publisher = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e}},
	organization = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e}},
	url = {http://logica.ugent.be/centrum/preprints/De_Winter_(2012)_-_Brown.pdf},
	author = {De Winter, Jan},
	editor = {Van Kerkhove, Bart and Libert, Thierry and Vanpaemel, Geert and Marage, Pierre}
}
@article {677635,
	title = {De ontologische focus van sociaal-wetenschappelijke verklaringen.},
	journal = {Ethiek \& Maatschappij},
	volume = {12},
	number = {3},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {3{\textendash}22},
	abstract = {<p>The author presents a survey of different opinions about the ontological focus of social scientific explanations. The opinions discussed are: methodological collectivism, methodological individualism, methodological structurism, methodological physicalism, the sociobiological point of view, and explanatory pluralism. These approaches all provide an answer to the question On which ontological level(s) should social scientific explanations concentrate? Because all other forms of explanatory pluralism, as well as the non-pluralistic answers to this question, have certain problems, the author introduces a new form of explanatory pluralism that avoids these problems: context-related explanatory pluralism. Context-related explanatory pluralism makes a critical attitude (in the philosophy of science) compatible with a fluently developing and progressing science. This means that it is not only the most plausible guideline regarding the ontological focus of social scientific explanations, but also allows us to solve the conflict between Steve Fuller and Thomas Kuhn.</p>},
	author = {De Winter, Jan}
}
