Advertisement

The Dynamics of Thought Experiments A Comment on David Atkinson

  • Michael StÖltzner
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 237)

Keywords

Real Experiment Thought Experiment Aristotelian Theory Uniform Gravitational Field Conceptual Commitment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, D. 2003. “Experiments and Thought Experiments in Natural Science”. This volume, pp. 209–225.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, J.S. 1987. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bohm, D. 1952. “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables”, I and II. Physical Review 85: 155–193.Google Scholar
  4. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J. and van Heerden, J. 2002. “Functional Thought Experiments”. Synthese 130: 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J.R. 1991. “Thought Experiments: A Platonic Account”. In Horowitz and Massey (eds.), pp. 119–128.Google Scholar
  6. Carrier, M. 1991. “Critical Discussion” of (Horowitz and Massey 1991). Erkenntnis 39: 413–419.Google Scholar
  7. Gendler, T.S. 1998. “Galileo and the Indispensability of Scientific Thought Experiment”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49: 397–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glas, E. 1999. “Thought-Experimentation and Mathematical Innovation”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A. and Zeilinger, A. 1989. “Going Beyond Bell’s Theorem”. In M. Kafatos (ed.), Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 69–72.Google Scholar
  10. Horowitz, T. and Massey, G.J. (eds.) 1991. Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  11. Humphreys, P. 1993. “Seven Theses on Thought Experiments”. In J. Earman et al. (eds.), Philosophical Problems of the Internal and External Worlds. Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Grünbaum. Pittsburgh and Konstanz: University of Pittsburgh Press and Universitätsverlag Konstanz, pp. 205–227.Google Scholar
  12. Irvine, A.D. 1991. “On the Nature of Thought Experiments in Scientific Reasoning”. In Horowitz and Massey (eds.), pp. 149–166.Google Scholar
  13. Jaffe, A. and Quinn, F. 1993. “‘Theoretical Mathematics’: Toward a Cultural Synthesis of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 29: 1–13.Google Scholar
  14. Janis, A.I. 1991. “Can Thought Experiments Fail?”. In Horowitz and Massey (eds.), pp. 113–118.Google Scholar
  15. Kühne, U. 2002. Die Methode des Gedankenexperiments. Untersuchung zur Rationalität naturwissenschaftlicher Theorieformen. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Bremen.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, T.E. 1977. “A Function for Thought Experiments”. In The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 240–265.Google Scholar
  17. Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and Refutations. The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lakatos, I. 1978. Mathematics, Science and Epistemology. Philosophical Papers 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Laymon, R. 1991. “Thought Experiments by Stevin, Mach and Gouy: Thought Experiments as Ideal Limits and as Semantic Domains”. In Horowitz and Massey (eds.), pp. 167–191.Google Scholar
  20. Mach, E. 1976. Knowledge and Error. Sketches on the Psychology of Enquiry. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  21. Neumann, J. von. 1932. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Julius Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Norton, J.D. 1991. “Thought Experiments in Einstein’s Work”. In Horowitz and Massey (eds.), pp. 129–148.Google Scholar
  23. Norton, J.D. 1996. “Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought?”. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26: 333–366.Google Scholar
  24. Rescher, N. 1991. “Thought Experimentation in Presocratic Philosophy”. In Horowitz and Massey (eds.), pp. 31–41.Google Scholar
  25. Stöltzner, M. 2002a. “What Lakatos Could Teach the Mathematical Physicist”. In G. Kampis, L. Kvasz, and M. Stöltzner (eds.), Appraising Lakatos. Mathematics, Methodology, and the Man. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 157–187.Google Scholar
  26. Stöltzner, M. 2002b. “Bohm, Bell and von Neumann. Some Philosophical Inequalities Concerning No-go Theorems”. In T. Placek and J. Butterfield (eds.), Modality, Probability, and Bell’s Theorem. Dordrecht: Kluwer (NATO series), pp. 35–36.Google Scholar
  27. Stöltzner, M. and Thirring, W. 1994. “Entstehen neuer Gesetze in der Evolution der Welt”. Naturwissenschaften 81: 243–249.Google Scholar
  28. Szabó, Á. 1978. The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics. Budapest: Akadémai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  29. Thurston, W. 1994. “‘Theoretical Mathematics’: Toward a Cultural Synthesis of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics”. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 30: 161–177.Google Scholar
  30. Weinberg, S. 1993. Dreams of a Final Theory. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  31. Witt-Hansen, J. 1976. “H.C. Örsted, Immanuel Kant, and the Thought Experiment”. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 13, 48–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael StÖltzner
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute Vienna CircleViennaAustria
  2. 2.IWT, University of BielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations