positives will be the rare exception rather than the rule.12 11….

positives will be the rare exception rather than the rule.12 11….

positives will be the rare exception rather than the rule.12 11. According

to the Oxford English Dictionary, a case study is “a particular instance of something used or analyzed in order to illustrate a thesis or principle.” Since theses in philosophy of science tend to be general meta-scientific claims (e.g., structural realism, explanationism, etc.), we can be pretty confident that philosophers of science use case studies in an attempt to support such general, meta-scientific claims in their published work. As discussed in Section 1, those who are concerned with appeals to case studies in philosophy of science point out that one of the problems with this method is that a particular instance does not provide adequate support for a general meta-scientific thesis, which is the sort of theses philosophers of science typically argue for and/or against in their published works. See, e.g., Pitt (2001) and Faust and Meehl (2002). 12. To the best of my knowledge, recent papers that discuss the method of case studies in the philosophy of science include the following: Bishop and Trout (2002), Bolinska and Martin (2019), Burian (2001), Chang (2011), Currie (2015), Faust and Meehl (2002), Kinzel (2015), McAllister (2018), Morgan (2012), Pinnick and Gale (2000), Pitt (2001), Steel et al. (2017), and the papers collected in Sauer and Scholl (2016). 70 The Case Study Method Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/posc_a_00333 by guest on 02 June 2021 3. Results 3.1. PhilSci-Archive The PhilSci-Archive is “an electronic archive specifically tailored to and run by philosophers of science” (philsci-archive.pitt.edu/). The PhilSciArchive’s Board “is comprised of philosophers of science with recognized standing in the profession,” which include members of the Governing Board of the Philosophy of Science Association, editors of the journal Philosophy of Science, and directors of the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh (philsci-archive.pitt.edu/information.html). All of this suggests that the PhilSci-Archive is a suitable database for systematically surveying research in philosophy of science. Since the “PhilSci-Archive invites submissions in all areas of philosophy of science, including general philosophy of science, philosophy of particular sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, etc.), feminist philosophy of science, socially relevant philosophy of science, history and philosophy of science, and history of the philosophy of science” (philsci-archive.pitt.edu), it is reasonable to regard it as a representative database of research in philosophy of science as a whole. However, some might worry that the PhilSci-Archive might not be representative of all the work that is being done in philosophy of science. For this reason, I have also mined data from philosophy of science journals through the JSTOR database (see Section 3.2). The PhilSci-Archive distinguishes between two subject areas broadly: General Issues in philosophy of science, such as causation and explanation, and specific sciences, such as Anthropology and Physics. Of all the papers currently (October 7, 2019) available in the “General Issues” subject area on the PhilSci-Archive (3,944 papers), 2,778 (70%) contain the indicator words “case study” and/or “case studies.” There is also a “History of Science Case Studies” issue in the “General Issues” subject area on the PhilSci-Archive, which is itself a reason to think that appeals to case studies are rather widespread in philosophy of science. The “History of Science Case Studies” general issue contains more papers (340) than the other 38 issues in the “General Issues” subject area, with the exception of the following general issues: “Causation” (568), “Confirmation/Induction” (487), “Explanation” (585), “History of Philosophy of Science” (454), “Models and Idealization” (562), “Realism/ Anti-realism” (558), and “Structure of Theories” (360). See Figure 1.13 As we can see from Figure 1, in almost all the general issues in the PhilSci-Archive from “Causation” to “Values in Science,” there is a sizeablepositives will be the rare exception rather than the rule.12 11. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a case study is “a particular instance of something used or analyzed in order to illustrate a thesis or principle.” Since theses in philosophy of science tend to be general meta-scientific claims (e.g., structural realism, explanationism, etc.), we can be pretty confident that philosophers of science use case studies in an attempt to support such general, meta-scientific claims in their published work. As discussed in Section 1, those who are concerned with appeals to case studies in philosophy of science point out that one of the problems with this method is that a particular instance does not provide adequate support for a general meta-scientific thesis, which is the sort of theses philosophers of science typically argue for and/or against in their published works. See, e.g., Pitt (2001) and Faust and Meehl (2002). 12. To the best of my knowledge, recent papers that discuss the method of case studies in the philosophy of science include the following: Bishop and Trout (2002), Bolinska and Martin (2019), Burian (2001), Chang (2011), Currie (2015), Faust and Meehl (2002), Kinzel (2015), McAllister (2018), Morgan (2012), Pinnick and Gale (2000), Pitt (2001), Steel et al. (2017), and the papers collected in Sauer and Scholl (2016). 70 The Case Study Method Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/posc_a_00333 by guest on 02 June 2021 3. Results 3.1. PhilSci-Archive The PhilSci-Archive is “an electronic archive specifically tailored to and run by philosophers of science” (philsci-archive.pitt.edu/). The PhilSciArchive’s Board “is comprised of philosophers of science with recognized standing in the profession,” which include members of the Governing Board of the Philosophy of Science Association, editors of the journal Philosophy of Science, and directors of the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh (philsci-archive.pitt.edu/information.html). All of this suggests that the PhilSci-Archive is a suitable database for systematically surveying research in philosophy of science. Since the “PhilSci-Archive invites submissions in all areas of philosophy of science, including general philosophy of science, philosophy of particular sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, etc.), feminist philosophy of science, socially relevant philosophy of science, history and philosophy of science, and history of the philosophy of science” (philsci-archive.pitt.edu), it is reasonable to regard it as a representative database of research in philosophy of science as a whole. However, some might worry that the PhilSci-Archive might not be representative of all the work that is being done in philosophy of science. For this reason, I have also mined data from philosophy of science journals through the JSTOR database (see Section 3.2). The PhilSci-Archive distinguishes between two subject areas broadly: General Issues in philosophy of science, such as causation and explanation, and specific sciences, such as Anthropology and Physics. Of all the papers currently (October 7, 2019) available in the “General Issues” subject area on the PhilSci-Archive (3,944 papers), 2,778 (70%) contain the indicator words “case study” and/or “case studies.” There is also a “History of Science Case Studies” issue in the “General Issues” subject area on the PhilSci-Archive, which is itself a reason to think that appeals to case studies are rather widespread in philosophy of science. The “History of Science Case Studies” general issue contains more papers (340) than the other 38 issues in the “General Issues” subject area, with the exception of the following general issues: “Causation” (568), “Confirmation/Induction” (487), “Explanation” (585), “History of Philosophy of Science” (454), “Models and Idealization” (562), “Realism/ Anti-realism” (558), and “Structure of Theories” (360). See Figure 1.13 As we can see from Figure 1, in almost all the general issues in the PhilSci-Archive from “Causation” to “Values in Science,” there is a sizeable

Question 8.
131.Descartes was born at ———-
132.The Advancement of Learning was written by ———
133.——— is a mild empiricist
134.Spinoza was despised as an ———- by the Jews
135.Res extensa means ———
136. It is the art of ——— which brings other men’s ideas to birth
137.——— Greek philosopher is known for his probing questions
138.The etymological meaning of Philosophy is ———
139.The idol that stands for a persons individual inhibitions is known as———
140.The author of Introduction to Positive Philosophy _____________
141.——— is also known as First Philosophy _____________
142.The word aesthetics is derived from the Greek word———
143.The 18th century German thinker who initiated dramatic changes in the field of Aesthetics is ———
144.In the word Epistemology epistem means———