<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mol, Liesbeth</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carlé, Martin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bullynck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haskell before Haskell: an alternative lesson in practical logics of the ENIAC</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Logic and Computation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This article expands on Curry's work on how to implement the problem of inverse interpolation on the ENIAC (1946) and his subsequent work on developing a theory of program composition (19481950). It is shown that Curry's hands-on experience with the ENIAC on the one side and his acquaintance with systems of formal logic on the other, were conductive to conceive a compact notation for program construction which in turn would be instrumental to a mechanical synthesis of programs. Since Curry's systematic programming technique pronounces a critique of the Goldstine-von Neumann style of coding, his calculus of program composition not only anticipates automatic programming but also proposes explicit hardware optimizations largely unperceived by computer history until Backus' famous ACM Turing Award lecture (1977). The cohesion of these findings asks for an integrative historiographical approach. An appendix gives, for the first time, a full description of Curry's arithmetic compiler.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Faroldi, Federico L. G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Protopopescu, Tudor</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hyperintensional Logics of Reasons</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic Journal of the IGPL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Federico L.G. Faroldi</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hyperintensionality and Normativity</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>10</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frijters, Stef</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Condoravdi, Cleo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nair, Shyam</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pigozzi, Gabriella</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to take heroin (if at all). A new approach to detachment in deontic logic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Deontic Logic and Normative Systems: 14th International Conference</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">London</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">317-335</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">submitted</style></work-type></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Winter, Jan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kosolosky, Laszlo</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health, food, and science: an ethical assessment of research agendas</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique &amp; Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">228</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">701-726</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;We offer several new arguments for the view that existing research agendas in the health sciences and the agricultural sciences are morally deficient. More specifically, the following kinds of distortion of the agenda are discussed: in the health sciences, the health problems of the poor are more or less neglected, as well as non-medicinal solutions to health problems, and in the agricultural sciences, insufficient attention is paid to agroecology. We justify the claim that these three kinds of distortion are problematic on ethical grounds, showing that they are moral failures. Instead of starting from one ethical theory to show this, we present different ethical justifications, based on different ethical theories (Benthams utilitarianism, Rawlss theory of justice, Pogges rights-based account of minimal justice, Kitchers ethical theory, and classical liberalism). This should make our conclusion (i.e. that the distorted research agendas in the health sciences and the agricultural sciences pose a moral problem) at least initially convincing to adherents of different ethical theories.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Šešelja, Dunja</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heuristic Reevaluation of the Bacterial Hypothesis of Peptic Ulcer Disease in the 1950s</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Biotheoretica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">62</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">429–454</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Throughout the first half of the twentieth century the research on peptic ulcer disease (PUD) focused on two rivaling hypothesis: the acidity and the bacterial one. The latter was dismissed during the 1950s only to be revived with Warrens and Marshalls discovery of Helicobacter pylori in the 1980s. In this paper we investigate why the bacterial hypothesis was abandoned in the 1950s, and whether there were good epistemic reasons for its dismissal. Of special interest for our research question is Palmers 1954 large-scale study, which challenged the bacterial hypothesis with serious counter-evidence, and which by many scholars is considered as the shifting point in the research on PUD. However, we show that: 1. The perceived refutatory impact of Palmers study was disproportionate to its methodological rigor. This undermines its perceived status as a crucial experiment against the bacterial hypothesis. 2. In view of this and other considerations we argue that the bacterial hypothesis was worthy of pursuit in the 1950s.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Winter, Jan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How (Not) to Reform Biomedical Research: A Review of Some Policy Proposals</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Responsible Innovation 1</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">97–110</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Abstract In a recent article, Julian Reiss has identified some very important epistemic, moral and socio-economic failures in current biomedical research, and he argues that philosophers of science should reflect on how to (re)organize biomedical research in order to remedy these failures. In this chapter, several possible reforms of biomedical research are evaluated. I will reflect on how to tackle the epistemic failures by comparing the solution suggested by Julian Reiss to an alternative policy option. Most attention will, however, be paid to one of the moral failures: the fact that a disproportionately small part of the money devoted to health research goes to research into diseases that mainly affect third-world countries (the problem of neglected diseases). The most important advantages and disadvantages of some prominent proposals for a solution are disclosed  I will consider the proposals of Thomas Pogge, Joseph Stiglitz, Julian Reiss, and James Robert Brown  and I will also draw attention to an alternative policy proposal.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Vreese, Leen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to Study Scientific Explanation?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific Explanation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Springer</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25–37</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper investigates the working-method of three important philosophers of explanation: Carl Hempel, Philip Kitcher and Wesley Salmon. We argue that they do three things: (i) construct an explication in the sense of Carnap, which then is used as a tool to make (ii) descriptive and (iii) normative claims about the explanatory practice of scientists. We also show that they did well with respect to (i), but that they failed to give arguments for their descriptive and normative claims. We think it is the responsibility of current philosophers of explanation to go on where Hempel, Kitcher and Salmon failed. However, we should go on in a clever way. We call this clever way the pragmatic approach to scientific explanation. We clarify what this approach consists in and defend it.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martens, Liesbeth</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Het debat tussen 'groene spellers' en 'witte spellers' geëvalueerd vanuit een sociaal-epistemologische invalshoek</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ethiek &amp; Maatschappij</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">61–78</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In the Netherlands and Flanders, a debate on the Dutch spelling has been raging between, on the one hand, the green spellers, who follow the official green spelling, and, on the other hand, the protesting white spellers, who espouse an alternative spelling. In the present article, this debate will be approached from a socio-epistemological perspective. Using the theory of Helen Longino, we highlight how the debate between the parties has been conducted, and explain why it failed to become a fruitful debate, based on a critical discourse and by which both parties strive for objective knowledge. We also draw a few lessons for the future.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Claes, Tom</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Het doel van wetenschap: is er een derde weg tussen onbeperkt intentioneel realisme en strikt pragmatisme?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Door Denken en Doen. Essays bij het Werk van Ronald Commers</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Academia Press</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">243–253</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9789038219431</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Ik onderscheid drie posities met betrekking tot het doel van wetenschap: onbeperkt intentioneel realisme, strikt pragmatisme en gesofistikeerd pragmatisme. Ik argumenteer dat er geen echt verschil is tussen gesofisticeerd pragmatisme en onbeperkt intentioneel realisme: ze komen beide neer op &quot;anything goes.&quot; Dit betekent dat gesofistikeerd pragmatisme niet de gulden middenweg is die het op het eerste zicht lijkt te zijn.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ducheyne, Steffen</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aerts, Diederik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Broekaert, Jan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">D'Hooghe, Bart</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Note, Nicole</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">History and Philosophy of Science: From Peaceful Coexistence to Golden Age of Interdisciplinarity?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Worldviews, Science and Us: Bridging Knowledge and its Implications for our Perpectives on the World.</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">World Scientific Publishing Company</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Singapore</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26-36</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Winter, Jan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to make the research agenda in the health sciences less distorted</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">THEORIA - REVISTA DE TEORIA HISTORIA Y FUNDAMENTOS DE LA CIENCIA</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">27</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">75–93</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;A well-known problem in the health sciences is the distorted research agenda: the agenda features too little research that is tailored to the health problems of the poor, and it features too little research that supports the development of other solutions to health problems than medicines (e.g., change of lifestyle). This article analyzes these two sub-problems in more detail, and assesses several strategies to deal with them, resulting in some specific recommendations that indicate what governments should do to make the research agenda in the health sciences less distorted.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hierarchic adaptive logics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logic Journal of the IGPL</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">45–72</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This article discusses the proof theory, semantics and meta-theory of a class of adaptive logics, called hierarchic adaptive logics. Their specific characteristics are illustrated throughout the article with the use of one exemplary logic HKx, an explicans for reasoning with prioritized belief bases. A generic proof theory for these systems is defined, together with a less complex proof theory for a subclass of them. Soundness and a restricted form of completeness are established with respect to a non-redundant semantics. It is shown that all hierarchic adaptive logics are reflexive, have the strong reassurance property and that a subclass of them is a fixed point for a broad class of premise sets. Finally, they are compared to a different yet related class of adaptive logics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Historical objections against the number line</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Science and Education</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">863–880</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Historical studies on the development of mathematical concepts will help mathematics teachers to relate their students’ difficulties in understanding to conceptual problems in the history of mathematics. We argue that one popular tool for teaching about numbers, the number line, may not be fit for early teaching of operations involving negative numbers. Our arguments are drawn from the many discussions on negative numbers during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries from philosophers and mathematicians such as Arnauld, Leibniz, Wallis, Euler and d’Alembert. Not only does division by negative numbers pose problems for the number line, but even the very idea of quantities smaller than nothing has been challenged. Drawing lessons from the history of mathematics, we argue for the introduction of negative numbers in education within the context of symbolic operations.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Froeyman, Anton</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Historische uitvoeringspraktijk</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De uil van minerva</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21–38</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper, I offer some philosophical thoughts on the phenomenon of historical performance practice. I investigate the historical conditions of possibility of the ˝epistemologization˝ of historical performance practice and I argue for a more hermeneutical approach.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Urbaniak, Rafal</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How not to use the Church-Turing thesis against platonism</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophia Mathematica</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">74–89</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Olszewski claims that the Church-Turing thesis can be used in an argument against platonism in philosophy of mathematics. The key step of his argument employs an example of a supposedly effectively computable but not Turing-computable function. I argue that the process he describes is not an effective computation, and that the argument relies on the illegitimate conflation of effective computability with there being a way to find out.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeffer, Albrecht</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hypocrisie binnen de wiskunde?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wiskunde &amp; onderwijs</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">148</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">306–315</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Langhe, Rogier</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How monist is heterodoxy?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cambridge Journal of Economics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep057</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">34</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">793–805</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Some heterodox economists, most notably Tony Lawson, have come under suspicion of not being truepluralists, but strategic pluralists: their advocacy of pluralism is thought to be merely instrumental to ahidden monist agenda. This paper does not aim to judge the accused but rather to assess the accusations;the focus is on clarifying the notion of pluralism itself. First a paradox is found to lie at the core of scientific pluralism. Different responses to this paradox can be traced to different views on pluralismfound in the literature. The resulting classification allows an analysis of the current controversy amongpluralists and provides an understanding of the different aspects of the debate.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Šešelja, Dunja</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Torres, Juan Manuel</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to Identify Scientifc Revolutions?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On Kuhn's Philosophy and its Legacy</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CFCUL</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lisbon</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">251–282</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-989-8247-12-4</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Conceptualizing scientific revolutions by means of explicating their causes, their underlying structure and implications has been an important part of Kuhn's philosophy of science and belongs to its legacy. In this paper we show that such “explanatory concepts” of revolutions should be distinguished from a concept based on the identification criteria of scientific revolutions. The aim of this paper is to offer such a concept, and to show that it can be fruitfully used for a further elaboration of the explanatory conceptions of revolutions. On the one hand, our concept can be used to test the preciseness and accuracy of these conceptions, by examining to what extent their criteria fit revolutions as they are defined by our concept. On the other hand, our concept can serve as the basis on which these conceptions can be further specified. We will present four different explanatory concepts of revolutions – Kuhn's, Thagard's, Chen's and Barker's, and Laudan's – and point to the ways in which each of them can be further specified in view of our concept.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How Probabilistic Causation Can Account for the Use of Mechanistic Evidence</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">International Studies in the Philosophy of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">277–-295</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In a recent paper in this journal, Federica Russo and Jon Williamson argue that an analysis of causality in terms of probabilistic relationships does not do justice to the use of mechanistic evidence to support causal claims. I will present Ronald Giere=s theory of probabilistic causation, and show that it can account for the use of mechanistic evidence (both in the health sciences B on which Russo and Williamson focus B and elsewhere). I also review some other probabilistic theories of causation (of Suppes, Eells and Humphreys) and show that they cannot account for the use of mechanistic evidence. I argue that these theories are also inferior to Giere's theory in other respects.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mol, Liesbeth</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to talk with a computer: an essay on computability and man-computer conversations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Off Topic: Ubersetzen. Zeitschrift für Medienkunst der KHM</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">80–89</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ducheyne, Steffen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Huygens's understanding of trajectory: Via media between Galileo and Newton</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Historia scientiarum, International Journal of the History of Science Society of Japan</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">17</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–19</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this essay, I shall argue that Huygens can be truly seen as the via media between Galileo and Newton as far as conceptualizing orbital motion is concerned. Contrary to Galileo (who endorsed a concept of circular inertia when dealing with orbital motion), Huygens subscribed to our modern idea of rectilinear motion. Huygens was unable to integrate adequately in his worldview of vortical mechanics. However, he was aware of the utter importance of studying nascent motions (as Joella G. Yoder has pointed out before) It will be shown that an adequate account of orbital motion required three necessary ingredients: (1) an adequate conceptual framework (rectilinear inertia), (2) a fruitful metaphysical outlook (the existence of voids) and an appropriate mathematical machinery (with a focus on nascent motion). All three components were successfully put to practice by Newton.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bouwel, Jeroen</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heeft er iemand een wetenschapsbeleid gezien? Over wetenschap, democratie en de onderzoeksagenda</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Samenleving en politiek</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.stichtinggerritkreveld.be/ECMS\_CLIENT/configuration/pages/artikel.php?aid=307</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12–18</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Mey, Tim</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hoe geschiedenis tot lering strekt</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ethiek en Maatschappij</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">47–54</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;How History Can Teach Us  Counterfactual questions (hypothetical questions of which the premises contradict the historical facts) are not often explicitly used in historical research to identify causes of particular facts. The methodology of thought experiments offers nevertheless important opportunities to contemporary historiography. One could even ask oneself if historical research is possible at all without so called what if-questions. Just like analogies, thought experiments are necessary to complete the mental process which interpretes causes and effects of human behaviour in history. Therefore, counterfactual thought experiments can easily be traced in the construction of historical explanations.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Provijn, Dagmar</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Blockeel, H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Denecker, M.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to obtain elegant Fitch-style proofs from Goal directed ones.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the Fourtheenth Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2002</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2002</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vanackere, Guido</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">HL2, an inconsistency-adaptive and inconsistency-resolving logic for general statements that might have exceptions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3-4</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">317–338</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The present paper offers a new approach to non-monotonic logics and their reconstruction in terms of inconsistency-adaptive logics. By applying a special technique, universally quantified formulas are assigned instances that, given the paraconsistent framework, do not cause triviality even if they conflict with knowledge deriving from other sources. From the special instances, the usual instances may be derived conditionally, viz. provided they are not contradicted by statements derived with a higher preference ranking.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Bendegem, Jean Paul</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Human(istisch)e wiskunde of de mogelijkheid van een alternatieve wiskunde.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De toekomst van het heden : zijn we op weg naar een menselijker samenleving?</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humanistisch Vrijzinnige Dienst</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">127–140</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9074174051</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weber, Erik</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Raymaekers, Bart</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Het construeren van wetenschappelijke verklaringen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gehelen en fragmenten. De vele gezichten van de filosofie</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1993</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Universitaire Pers</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">261-265</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record></records></xml>