Achinstein, P. (1991), Particles and Waves: Historical Essays in the Philosophy of Science, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Achinstein, P.(2001), The Book of Evidence, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alston, W. (1976), “Two Types of Foundationalism,” Journal of Philosophy 73: 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bamford, G. (1993), “Popper's Explications of Ad Hocness: Circularity, Empirical Content, and Scientific Practice,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44: 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E. (1996a), “Discussion: Thoughts on Maher's Predictivism,” Philosophy of Science, 63: 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(1996b), “Social Predictivism,” Erkenntnis, 45: 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(1998), “Probabilities and Epistemic Pluralism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(1999), “The Quantitative Problem of Old Evidence,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48: 31–47.Google Scholar

Barnes, E.(2000), “Ockham's Razor and the Anti-Superfluity Principle,” Erkenntnis, 53: 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(2002), “Neither Truth nor Empirical Adequacy Explain Novel Success,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 80 (4): 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(2002), “The Miraculous Choice Argument for Realism,” Philosophical Studies, 111 (2): 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(2005a), “Predictivism for Pluralists,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56: 421–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(2005b), “On Mendeleev's Predictions: Comment on Scerri and Worrall,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 801–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barret, J. (1996), “Oracles, Aesthetics, and Bayesian Consensus,” Philosophy of Science, Supplement to 63, S273–S280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bensaude-Vincent, B. (1986), “Mendeleev's Periodic System of Chemical Elements,” British Journal for the History of Science, 19: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bensaude-Vincent, B.(2000), “From Teaching to Writing: Lecture Notes and Textbooks at the French Ecole Polytechnique,” in Lundren and Bensaude-Vincent, pp. 273–294.

Bonjour, L. [1976], “The Coherence Theory of Empirical Knowledge,” Philosophical Studies, 30: 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonjour, L. [1978], “Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation?,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 15: 1–13.Google Scholar

Boyd, R. (1981), “Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology,” PSA 1980 Vol. 2, East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 612–662.Google Scholar

Boyd, R.(1985), “Lex Orandi est Lex Credendi,” in Churchland, and Hooker, (eds.), pp. 612–662.Google Scholar

Boyd, R.(1991), “The Current Status of Scientific Realism,” in Boyd, R., Gasper, P., and Trout, J. D., (eds.) The Philosophy of Science, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 195–222. Also printed in Leplin, J. (ed.) 1984, Scientific Realism, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 41–82.Google Scholar

Brush, S. (1996), “The Reception of Mendeleev's periodic law in America and Britain,” Isis, 87: 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bynum, W. F., Browne, E. J., and Porter, R. (1981), Dictionary of the History of Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, R. and Vinci, T. (1983), “Novel Confirmation,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 34: 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cassebaum, H. and Kauffman, G. B. (1971), “The Periodic System of the Chemical Elements: The Search for its Discoverer,” Isis, 62: 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chihara, C. [1987], “Some Problems for Bayesian Confirmation Theory,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38: 551–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Churchland, P. and Hooker, C. (eds.) (1985), Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism with a Reply from Bas C. Van Fraassen, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Christensen, D. (1999), “Measuring Confirmation,” Journal of Philosophy, 96: 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, F. W. (1884), Elements of Chemistry, New York: Appleton.Google Scholar

Collins, R. (1994), “Against the Epistemic Value of Prediction Over Accommodation,” Nous, 28: 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coady, C. A. J. (1992), Testimony: A Philosophical Study, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Darden, L. (1991), Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Milt, C. (1951), “The Conference at Karlsruhe,” Journal of Chemical Education, 28: 421–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Douven, I. (2000), “The Anti-Realist Argument for Underdetermination,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 50: 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drake, S. (1967), “Galileo Galilei,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3, Edwards, P. (ed.), New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Earman, J. (ed.) (1983), Testing Scientific Theories, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Earman, J.(1992), Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Earman, J.(1993), “Carnap, Kuhn and the Philosophy of Science Methodology,” in Horwich, P. (ed.), World Changes, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Earman, J. and Glymour, C. (1980), “Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expeditions of 1919 and Their Predecessors,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11: 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, P. (1967), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company and the Free Press.Google Scholar

Eells, E. (1990), “Bayesian Problems of Old Evidence,” in Savage, W. (ed.), Scientific Theories, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Eells, E. and Fitelson, B. (2000), “Measuring Confirmation and Evidence,” Journal of Philosophy, 97: 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farrar, W. V. (1965), “Nineteenth Century Speculations on the Complexity of the Chemical Elements,” The British Journal for the History of Science, 2: 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fine, A. (1986), “Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science,” Mind, 95: 145–179.Google Scholar

Fine, A.(1991), “Piecemeal Realism,” Philosophical Studies, 61: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitelson, B. (1999), “The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity,” Philosophy of Science, Supplement to Vol. 66, No. 3, S362–S378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foley, R. (2001), Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frankel, H. (1979), “The Career of Continental Drift Theory,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10: 21–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garber, D. (1983), “Old Evidence and Logical Omniscience in Bayesian Confirmation Theory,” in Earman [1983].

Gardner, M. (1982), “Predicting Novel Facts,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giere, R. (1983), “Testing Theoretical Hypotheses,” in Earman, J. (ed.) Testing Scientific Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 10, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Giere, R.(1984), Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 2nd edn., New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Gillespie, C. C. (ed.) (1971), Dictionary of Scientific Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar

Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Good, I. J. (1967), “The White Shoe is a Red Herring,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 17: 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gutting, G. (1985), “Scientific Realism versus Constructive Empiricism,” in Churchland and Hooker (eds.) pp. 118–131.

Grünbaum, A. (1984), The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique, University of California Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. (1979), “Imre Lakatos's Philosophy of Science,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 30: 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hardwig, J. (1985), “Epistemic Independence,” Journal of Philosophy, 82: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hardwig, J.(1991), “The Role of Trust in Knowledge,” Journal of Philosophy, 88: 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harker, D. (2006), “Accommodation and Prediction: The Case of the Persistent Head,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hobbes, J. (1993), “Ex Post Facto Explanations,” Journal of Philosophy, 93: 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoel, P. G. (1971), Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Holden, N. E. (1984), “Mendeleev and the Periodic Classification of the Elements,” Chemical International, 6: 18–31.Google Scholar

Howson, C. (1984), “Bayesianism and Support by Novel Facts,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35: 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C.(1985), “Some Recent Objections to the Bayesian Theory of Support,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 36: 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C.(1988), “Accommodation, Prediction, and Bayesian Confirmation Theory,” PSA 1988, 2: 381–292.Google Scholar

Howson, C.(1990), “Fitting Your Theory to the Facts: Probably Not Such a Bad Thing After All,” in Savage, W. (ed.), Scientific Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Howson, C.(1991), “The ‘Old Evidence’ Problem,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42: 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C.(1996), “Error Probabilities in Error,” Philosophy of Science, Supplement to Vol. 64, pp. S185–S194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C. and Franklin, A. (1991), “Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism,” Philosophy of Science, 58: 574–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1989), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Open Court, La Salle.Google Scholar

Ihde, A. J. (1961), “The Karlsruhe Congress: A Centennial Retrospective,” Journal of Chemical Education, 38 (2): 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jeffrey, R. (1965), The Logic of Decision, McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar

Kahn, J. A., Landsberg, S. E., and Stockman, A. C. (1990), “On Novel Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43: 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kantorovich, A. (1993), Scientific Discovery: Logic and Tinkering, State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, M. (1996), Decision Theory as Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keynes, J. M. (1929), A Treatise on Probability, London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World,” in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P.(1993), The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Knight, D. M. (1970), Classical Scientific Papers – Chemistry, 2nd Series, New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar

Knight, D. M.(1992), Ideas in Chemistry: A History of the Science, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kukla, A. (1998), Studies in Scientific Realism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kultgen, J. H. (1958), “Philosophic Conceptions in Mendeleev's Principles of Chemistry,” Philosophy of Science, 25: 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kusch, M. (2002), Knowledge by Agreement, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lackey, J. and Sosa, E. (eds.) (2006), The Epistemology of Testimony, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladyman, J., Douven, I., Horsten, L., and Fraassen, B. (1997), “A Defense of Van Fraassen's Critique of Abductive Inference: Reply to Psillos,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 47: 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laudan, L. (1981), Science and Hypothesis, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laudan, L.(1984), “Explaining the Success of Science: Beyond Epistemic Realism and Relativism,” in Cushing, J., Delaney, C. F., and Gutting, G. (eds.) Science and Reality, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, L.(1990), “Normative Naturalism,” Philosophy of Science, 57: 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I.(1971), “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions,” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8: 91–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laing, M. (1995), “The Karlsruhe Conference, 1860,” Education in Chemistry, 32: 151–153.Google Scholar

Lange, M. (2001), “The Apparent Superiority of Prediction to Accommodation as a Side Effect: a Reply to Maher,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52: 575–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrer, K. (1974), “Induction, Consensus and Catastrophe,” in Bodgan, R. J. (ed.) Local Induction, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Lehrer, K.(1976), “When Rational Disagreement is Impossible,” Nous, 10: 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrer, K.(1977), “Social Information,” Monist, 60: 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrer, K.(1978), “Consensus and Comparison: A Theory of Social Rationality,” in Hooker, C. A., Leach, J. J., and McClennan, E. F. (eds.), Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory, Vol. 1, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Lehrer, K. and Wagner, C. (1981), Rational Consensus in Science and Society, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leplin, J. (1975), “The Concept of an Ad Hoc Hypothesis,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 5: 309–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leplin, J.(1982), “The Assessment of Auxiliary Hypotheses,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33: 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leplin, J.(1987), “The Bearing of Discovery on Justification,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17: 805–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leplin, J.(1997), A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Leplin, J.(2000), “The Epistemic Status of Auxiliary Hypotheses,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 50: 376–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. (1979), “Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow,” Nous, 13: 455–476, reprinted in Lewis, D. (1986) Philosophical Papers, Vol. II, Oxford University Press, pp. 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lipton, P. (1991), Inference to the Best Explanation, London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lipton, P.(1992–3), “Is the Best Good Enough?,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93: 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lipton, P.(2004), Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd edn., London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Locke, J. (1995), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.Google Scholar

Longino, H. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lundgren, A. (2000), “Theory and Practice in Swedish Chemical Textbooks during the Nineteenth Century,” in Lundgren and Bensaude-Vincent, pp. 91–118.

Lundgren, A. and Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2000), Communicating Chemistry: Textbooks and Their Audiences 1789–1939, USA, Science History Publications.Google Scholar

MacDonald, H. (1985), Eating for the Health of It, Priddis, Alberta: Austin Books.Google Scholar

Magnus, P. D. and Callender, C. (2004), “Realist Ennui and the Base Rate Fallacy,” Philosophy of Science, 71: 320–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maher, P. (1988), “Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery,” PSA 1988, 1: 273–285.Google Scholar

Maher, P.(1990), “How Prediction Enhances Confirmation,” in Dunn, J. M. and Gupta, A. (eds.), Truth or Consequences: Essays in Honor of Nuel Belnap, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 327–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Maher, P.(1993), “Howson and Franklin on Prediction,” Philosophy of Science, 60: 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maher, P.[1996], “Subjective and Objective Confirmation,” Philosophy of Science, 63: 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manahan, S. E. (1997), Environmental Science and Technology, Boca Raton, New York: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar

Marsden, G. (1980), Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maxwell, G. (1962), “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities,” in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol 3. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

Mayo, D. (1991), “Novel Evidence and Severe Tests,” Philosophy of Science, 58: 523–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayo, D.(1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge, University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McAllister, J. W. (1996), Beauty and Revolution in Science, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Meehl, P. (1999), “How to Weight Scientists' Probabilities is Not a Big Problem: Comment on Barnes,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50: 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mendeleev, D. (1889), “The Periodic Law of the Chemical Elements: Faraday Lecture,” printed in Knight (1970), pp. 322–344.

Merton, R. (1973), “The Normative Structure of Science,” printed in Merton, R. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. Storer, N. W., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1961), System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, 8th edn., London.Google Scholar

Murphy, N. (1989), “Another Look at Novel Facts,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 20. (3), 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Musgrave, A. (1974), “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Musgrave, A.(1985), “Realism versus Constructive Empiricism,” in Churchland and Hooker (eds.), pp. 197–221.

Musgrave, A.(1988), “The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism,” in Nola, R. (ed.), Relativism and Realism in Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nickles, T. (1987), “Lakatosian Heuristics and Epistemic Support,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38: 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nickles, T.(1988), “Truth or Consequences? Generative Versus Consequential Justification in Science,” PSA 1988, Vol. 2, 393–405.Google Scholar

Niiniluoto, I. (1983), “Novel Facts and Bayesianism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 34: 375–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunan, R. (1984), “Novel Facts, Bayesian Rationality, and the History of Continental Drift,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 15: 267–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Partington, J. R. (1964), A History of Chemistry, Vol. 4, London: Macmillan and Co. LTD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1897), Anonymous Review of Mendeleev's Principles of Chemistry, Nation, 25: 424.Google Scholar

Peters, D. and Ceci, S. (1982), “Peer Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles Submitted Again,” Behavior and Brain Sciences, 5: 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. (1963), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, New York and Evanston: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1975), Mathematics, Matter, and Method, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Psillos, S. (1996), “On Van Fraassen's Critique of Abductive Reasoning,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 46: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Psillos, S.(1997), “How Not to Defend Constructive Empiricism: A Rejoinder,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 47: 369–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Psillos, S.(1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1951), “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review, 60: 20–43. Reprinted in Quine (1953), From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quine, W. V. O.(1960), Word and Object, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Redhead, M. (1986), “Novelty and Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37: 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richmond, A. (1999), “Between Abduction and the Deep Blue Sea,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 49: 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenkranz, R. (1983), “Why Glymour IS a Bayesian,” in Earman, 1983, pp. 69–98.

Salmon, W. (1966), The Foundation of Scientific Inference, University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Salmon, W.(1981), “Rational Prediction,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32: 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sambursky, S. (1971), “Structure and Periodicity: Centenary of Mendeleev's Discovery,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 4: 1–13.Google Scholar

Scerri, E. (2005), “Response to Barnes' critique of Scerri and Worrall,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 813–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scerri, E.(2007), The Periodic Table: Its Story and its Significance, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Scerri, E. and Worrall, J. (2001), “Prediction and the Periodic Table,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 32: 407–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schaffner, K. (1974), “Einstein versus Lorentz: Research Programmes and the Logic of Theory Evaluation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25: 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schlesinger, G. (1987), “Accommodation and Prediction,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 65: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapere, D. (1982), “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy,” Philosophy of Science, 49: 485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapin, S. (1994), A Social History of Truth, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Sobel, M. (1987), Light, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Sober, E. (1988), Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution and Inference, Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sober, E. and Hitchcock, C. (2004), “Prediction Versus Accommodation and the Risk of Overfitting,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55: 1–34.Google Scholar

Solov'ev, Y. I. (1984), “D.I. Mendeleev and the English Chemists,” Journal of Chemical Education, 61: 1069–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soyfer, V. (1994), Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar

Speelman, C. (1998), “Implicit Expertise: Do We Expect Too Much From Our Experts?,” in Kirsner, K., Speelman, C., Maybery, M., O'Brien-Malone, A., Anderson, M., MacLeod, C. (eds.), Implicit and Explicit Mental Processes, Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 135–148.Google Scholar

Spring, R. J. (1975), “Vindicating the periodic law,” Education in Chemistry, 12: 134–138.Google Scholar

Stanford, P. K. (2000), “An Anti-Realist Explanation of the Success of Science,” Philosophy of Science, 67: 266–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strathern, P. (2000), The Quest for the Elements, New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar

Suppe, F. (1998), “The Structure of a Scientific Paper,” Philosophy of Science, 65 (3): 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thomason, N. (1992), “Could Lakatos, Even With Zahar's Criterion for Novel Fact, Evaluate the Copernican Research Programme?,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43: 161–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Fraassen, B.(1988), “The Problem of Old Evidence,” in Austin, D. F. (ed.)., Philosophical Analysis, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraassen, B.(1989), Laws and Symmetry, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Velikovsky, I. (1950), Worlds in Collision, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Velikovsky, I.(1955), Earth in Upheaval, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Venable, F. P. (1896), The Development of the Periodic Law, Chemical Publishing Co., Easton, PA.Google Scholar

Spronson, J. W. (1969), The Periodic System of Chemical Elements: A History of the First Hundred Years, Amsterdam, London and New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Wagner, C. (1978), “Consensus Through Respect: A Model of Rational Group Decision Making,” Philosophical Studies, 34: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, C.(1981), “The Formal Foundations of Lehrer's Theory of Consensus,” in Bogdan, R. U. (ed.) Profile: Keith Lehrer, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Wagner, C.(1997), “Old evidence and new explanation,” Philosophy of Science, 64: 677–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, C.(1999), “Old evidence and new explanation II,” Philosophy of Science, 66: 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, C.(2001), “Old evidence and new explanation III,” Philosophy of Science, 68: s165–s175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (1997), Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

White, R. (2003), “The Epistemic Advantage of Prediction Over Accommodation,” Mind, 112: 448, 653–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Worrall, J. (1985), “Scientific Discovery and Theory Confirmation,” in Pitt, J. C. (ed.), Change and Progress in Modern Science, pp. 301–331, D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Worrall, J.(1989), “Fresnel, Poisson and the White Spot: The Role of Successful Predictions in the Acceptance of Scientific Theories,” printed in Gooding, D., Pinch, T. and Schaffer, S. (eds.), The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Worrall, J.(2002), “New Evidence for Old,” in Gardenfors, P., Wolenski, J., and Kihania-Placek, K. (eds.), In the Scope of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, vol. 1, pp. 191–209, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Worrall, J.(2005), “Prediction and the ‘Periodic Law’: A Rejoinder to Barnes,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 817–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zahar, E. (1973), “Why did Einstein's Programme supercede Lorentz's?,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 24: 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zahar, E.(1989), Einstein's Revolution, La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Achinstein, P. (1991), Particles and Waves: Historical Essays in the Philosophy of Science, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Achinstein, P.(2001), The Book of Evidence, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alston, W. (1976), “Two Types of Foundationalism,” Journal of Philosophy 73: 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bamford, G. (1993), “Popper's Explications of Ad Hocness: Circularity, Empirical Content, and Scientific Practice,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44: 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E. (1996a), “Discussion: Thoughts on Maher's Predictivism,” Philosophy of Science, 63: 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(1996b), “Social Predictivism,” Erkenntnis, 45: 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(1998), “Probabilities and Epistemic Pluralism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(1999), “The Quantitative Problem of Old Evidence,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48: 31–47.Google Scholar

Barnes, E.(2000), “Ockham's Razor and the Anti-Superfluity Principle,” Erkenntnis, 53: 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(2002), “Neither Truth nor Empirical Adequacy Explain Novel Success,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 80 (4): 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(2002), “The Miraculous Choice Argument for Realism,” Philosophical Studies, 111 (2): 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(2005a), “Predictivism for Pluralists,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56: 421–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, E.(2005b), “On Mendeleev's Predictions: Comment on Scerri and Worrall,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 801–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barret, J. (1996), “Oracles, Aesthetics, and Bayesian Consensus,” Philosophy of Science, Supplement to 63, S273–S280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bensaude-Vincent, B. (1986), “Mendeleev's Periodic System of Chemical Elements,” British Journal for the History of Science, 19: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bensaude-Vincent, B.(2000), “From Teaching to Writing: Lecture Notes and Textbooks at the French Ecole Polytechnique,” in Lundren and Bensaude-Vincent, pp. 273–294.

Bonjour, L. [1976], “The Coherence Theory of Empirical Knowledge,” Philosophical Studies, 30: 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonjour, L. [1978], “Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation?,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 15: 1–13.Google Scholar

Boyd, R. (1981), “Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology,” PSA 1980 Vol. 2, East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 612–662.Google Scholar

Boyd, R.(1985), “Lex Orandi est Lex Credendi,” in Churchland, and Hooker, (eds.), pp. 612–662.Google Scholar

Boyd, R.(1991), “The Current Status of Scientific Realism,” in Boyd, R., Gasper, P., and Trout, J. D., (eds.) The Philosophy of Science, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 195–222. Also printed in Leplin, J. (ed.) 1984, Scientific Realism, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 41–82.Google Scholar

Brush, S. (1996), “The Reception of Mendeleev's periodic law in America and Britain,” Isis, 87: 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bynum, W. F., Browne, E. J., and Porter, R. (1981), Dictionary of the History of Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, R. and Vinci, T. (1983), “Novel Confirmation,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 34: 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cassebaum, H. and Kauffman, G. B. (1971), “The Periodic System of the Chemical Elements: The Search for its Discoverer,” Isis, 62: 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chihara, C. [1987], “Some Problems for Bayesian Confirmation Theory,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38: 551–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Churchland, P. and Hooker, C. (eds.) (1985), Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism with a Reply from Bas C. Van Fraassen, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Christensen, D. (1999), “Measuring Confirmation,” Journal of Philosophy, 96: 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, F. W. (1884), Elements of Chemistry, New York: Appleton.Google Scholar

Collins, R. (1994), “Against the Epistemic Value of Prediction Over Accommodation,” Nous, 28: 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coady, C. A. J. (1992), Testimony: A Philosophical Study, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Darden, L. (1991), Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Milt, C. (1951), “The Conference at Karlsruhe,” Journal of Chemical Education, 28: 421–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Douven, I. (2000), “The Anti-Realist Argument for Underdetermination,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 50: 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drake, S. (1967), “Galileo Galilei,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3, Edwards, P. (ed.), New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Earman, J. (ed.) (1983), Testing Scientific Theories, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Earman, J.(1992), Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Earman, J.(1993), “Carnap, Kuhn and the Philosophy of Science Methodology,” in Horwich, P. (ed.), World Changes, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Earman, J. and Glymour, C. (1980), “Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expeditions of 1919 and Their Predecessors,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11: 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, P. (1967), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company and the Free Press.Google Scholar

Eells, E. (1990), “Bayesian Problems of Old Evidence,” in Savage, W. (ed.), Scientific Theories, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Eells, E. and Fitelson, B. (2000), “Measuring Confirmation and Evidence,” Journal of Philosophy, 97: 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farrar, W. V. (1965), “Nineteenth Century Speculations on the Complexity of the Chemical Elements,” The British Journal for the History of Science, 2: 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fine, A. (1986), “Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science,” Mind, 95: 145–179.Google Scholar

Fine, A.(1991), “Piecemeal Realism,” Philosophical Studies, 61: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitelson, B. (1999), “The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity,” Philosophy of Science, Supplement to Vol. 66, No. 3, S362–S378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foley, R. (2001), Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frankel, H. (1979), “The Career of Continental Drift Theory,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10: 21–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garber, D. (1983), “Old Evidence and Logical Omniscience in Bayesian Confirmation Theory,” in Earman [1983].

Gardner, M. (1982), “Predicting Novel Facts,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giere, R. (1983), “Testing Theoretical Hypotheses,” in Earman, J. (ed.) Testing Scientific Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 10, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Giere, R.(1984), Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 2nd edn., New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Gillespie, C. C. (ed.) (1971), Dictionary of Scientific Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar

Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Good, I. J. (1967), “The White Shoe is a Red Herring,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 17: 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gutting, G. (1985), “Scientific Realism versus Constructive Empiricism,” in Churchland and Hooker (eds.) pp. 118–131.

Grünbaum, A. (1984), The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique, University of California Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. (1979), “Imre Lakatos's Philosophy of Science,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 30: 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hardwig, J. (1985), “Epistemic Independence,” Journal of Philosophy, 82: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hardwig, J.(1991), “The Role of Trust in Knowledge,” Journal of Philosophy, 88: 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harker, D. (2006), “Accommodation and Prediction: The Case of the Persistent Head,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hobbes, J. (1993), “Ex Post Facto Explanations,” Journal of Philosophy, 93: 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoel, P. G. (1971), Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Holden, N. E. (1984), “Mendeleev and the Periodic Classification of the Elements,” Chemical International, 6: 18–31.Google Scholar

Howson, C. (1984), “Bayesianism and Support by Novel Facts,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35: 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C.(1985), “Some Recent Objections to the Bayesian Theory of Support,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 36: 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C.(1988), “Accommodation, Prediction, and Bayesian Confirmation Theory,” PSA 1988, 2: 381–292.Google Scholar

Howson, C.(1990), “Fitting Your Theory to the Facts: Probably Not Such a Bad Thing After All,” in Savage, W. (ed.), Scientific Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Howson, C.(1991), “The ‘Old Evidence’ Problem,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42: 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C.(1996), “Error Probabilities in Error,” Philosophy of Science, Supplement to Vol. 64, pp. S185–S194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C. and Franklin, A. (1991), “Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism,” Philosophy of Science, 58: 574–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1989), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Open Court, La Salle.Google Scholar

Ihde, A. J. (1961), “The Karlsruhe Congress: A Centennial Retrospective,” Journal of Chemical Education, 38 (2): 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jeffrey, R. (1965), The Logic of Decision, McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar

Kahn, J. A., Landsberg, S. E., and Stockman, A. C. (1990), “On Novel Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43: 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kantorovich, A. (1993), Scientific Discovery: Logic and Tinkering, State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, M. (1996), Decision Theory as Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keynes, J. M. (1929), A Treatise on Probability, London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World,” in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P.(1993), The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Knight, D. M. (1970), Classical Scientific Papers – Chemistry, 2nd Series, New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar

Knight, D. M.(1992), Ideas in Chemistry: A History of the Science, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kukla, A. (1998), Studies in Scientific Realism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kultgen, J. H. (1958), “Philosophic Conceptions in Mendeleev's Principles of Chemistry,” Philosophy of Science, 25: 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kusch, M. (2002), Knowledge by Agreement, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lackey, J. and Sosa, E. (eds.) (2006), The Epistemology of Testimony, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladyman, J., Douven, I., Horsten, L., and Fraassen, B. (1997), “A Defense of Van Fraassen's Critique of Abductive Inference: Reply to Psillos,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 47: 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laudan, L. (1981), Science and Hypothesis, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laudan, L.(1984), “Explaining the Success of Science: Beyond Epistemic Realism and Relativism,” in Cushing, J., Delaney, C. F., and Gutting, G. (eds.) Science and Reality, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, L.(1990), “Normative Naturalism,” Philosophy of Science, 57: 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I.(1971), “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions,” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8: 91–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laing, M. (1995), “The Karlsruhe Conference, 1860,” Education in Chemistry, 32: 151–153.Google Scholar

Lange, M. (2001), “The Apparent Superiority of Prediction to Accommodation as a Side Effect: a Reply to Maher,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52: 575–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrer, K. (1974), “Induction, Consensus and Catastrophe,” in Bodgan, R. J. (ed.) Local Induction, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Lehrer, K.(1976), “When Rational Disagreement is Impossible,” Nous, 10: 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrer, K.(1977), “Social Information,” Monist, 60: 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrer, K.(1978), “Consensus and Comparison: A Theory of Social Rationality,” in Hooker, C. A., Leach, J. J., and McClennan, E. F. (eds.), Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory, Vol. 1, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Lehrer, K. and Wagner, C. (1981), Rational Consensus in Science and Society, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leplin, J. (1975), “The Concept of an Ad Hoc Hypothesis,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 5: 309–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leplin, J.(1982), “The Assessment of Auxiliary Hypotheses,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33: 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leplin, J.(1987), “The Bearing of Discovery on Justification,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17: 805–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leplin, J.(1997), A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Leplin, J.(2000), “The Epistemic Status of Auxiliary Hypotheses,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 50: 376–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. (1979), “Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow,” Nous, 13: 455–476, reprinted in Lewis, D. (1986) Philosophical Papers, Vol. II, Oxford University Press, pp. 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lipton, P. (1991), Inference to the Best Explanation, London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lipton, P.(1992–3), “Is the Best Good Enough?,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93: 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lipton, P.(2004), Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd edn., London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Locke, J. (1995), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.Google Scholar

Longino, H. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lundgren, A. (2000), “Theory and Practice in Swedish Chemical Textbooks during the Nineteenth Century,” in Lundgren and Bensaude-Vincent, pp. 91–118.

Lundgren, A. and Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2000), Communicating Chemistry: Textbooks and Their Audiences 1789–1939, USA, Science History Publications.Google Scholar

MacDonald, H. (1985), Eating for the Health of It, Priddis, Alberta: Austin Books.Google Scholar

Magnus, P. D. and Callender, C. (2004), “Realist Ennui and the Base Rate Fallacy,” Philosophy of Science, 71: 320–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maher, P. (1988), “Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery,” PSA 1988, 1: 273–285.Google Scholar

Maher, P.(1990), “How Prediction Enhances Confirmation,” in Dunn, J. M. and Gupta, A. (eds.), Truth or Consequences: Essays in Honor of Nuel Belnap, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 327–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Maher, P.(1993), “Howson and Franklin on Prediction,” Philosophy of Science, 60: 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maher, P.[1996], “Subjective and Objective Confirmation,” Philosophy of Science, 63: 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manahan, S. E. (1997), Environmental Science and Technology, Boca Raton, New York: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar

Marsden, G. (1980), Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maxwell, G. (1962), “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities,” in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol 3. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

Mayo, D. (1991), “Novel Evidence and Severe Tests,” Philosophy of Science, 58: 523–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayo, D.(1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge, University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McAllister, J. W. (1996), Beauty and Revolution in Science, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Meehl, P. (1999), “How to Weight Scientists' Probabilities is Not a Big Problem: Comment on Barnes,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50: 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mendeleev, D. (1889), “The Periodic Law of the Chemical Elements: Faraday Lecture,” printed in Knight (1970), pp. 322–344.

Merton, R. (1973), “The Normative Structure of Science,” printed in Merton, R. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. Storer, N. W., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1961), System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, 8th edn., London.Google Scholar

Murphy, N. (1989), “Another Look at Novel Facts,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 20. (3), 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Musgrave, A. (1974), “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Musgrave, A.(1985), “Realism versus Constructive Empiricism,” in Churchland and Hooker (eds.), pp. 197–221.

Musgrave, A.(1988), “The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism,” in Nola, R. (ed.), Relativism and Realism in Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nickles, T. (1987), “Lakatosian Heuristics and Epistemic Support,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38: 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nickles, T.(1988), “Truth or Consequences? Generative Versus Consequential Justification in Science,” PSA 1988, Vol. 2, 393–405.Google Scholar

Niiniluoto, I. (1983), “Novel Facts and Bayesianism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 34: 375–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunan, R. (1984), “Novel Facts, Bayesian Rationality, and the History of Continental Drift,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 15: 267–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Partington, J. R. (1964), A History of Chemistry, Vol. 4, London: Macmillan and Co. LTD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1897), Anonymous Review of Mendeleev's Principles of Chemistry, Nation, 25: 424.Google Scholar

Peters, D. and Ceci, S. (1982), “Peer Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles Submitted Again,” Behavior and Brain Sciences, 5: 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. (1963), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, New York and Evanston: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1975), Mathematics, Matter, and Method, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Psillos, S. (1996), “On Van Fraassen's Critique of Abductive Reasoning,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 46: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Psillos, S.(1997), “How Not to Defend Constructive Empiricism: A Rejoinder,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 47: 369–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Psillos, S.(1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1951), “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review, 60: 20–43. Reprinted in Quine (1953), From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quine, W. V. O.(1960), Word and Object, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Redhead, M. (1986), “Novelty and Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37: 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richmond, A. (1999), “Between Abduction and the Deep Blue Sea,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 49: 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenkranz, R. (1983), “Why Glymour IS a Bayesian,” in Earman, 1983, pp. 69–98.

Salmon, W. (1966), The Foundation of Scientific Inference, University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Salmon, W.(1981), “Rational Prediction,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32: 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sambursky, S. (1971), “Structure and Periodicity: Centenary of Mendeleev's Discovery,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 4: 1–13.Google Scholar

Scerri, E. (2005), “Response to Barnes' critique of Scerri and Worrall,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 813–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scerri, E.(2007), The Periodic Table: Its Story and its Significance, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Scerri, E. and Worrall, J. (2001), “Prediction and the Periodic Table,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 32: 407–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schaffner, K. (1974), “Einstein versus Lorentz: Research Programmes and the Logic of Theory Evaluation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25: 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schlesinger, G. (1987), “Accommodation and Prediction,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 65: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapere, D. (1982), “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy,” Philosophy of Science, 49: 485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapin, S. (1994), A Social History of Truth, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Sobel, M. (1987), Light, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Sober, E. (1988), Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution and Inference, Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sober, E. and Hitchcock, C. (2004), “Prediction Versus Accommodation and the Risk of Overfitting,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55: 1–34.Google Scholar

Solov'ev, Y. I. (1984), “D.I. Mendeleev and the English Chemists,” Journal of Chemical Education, 61: 1069–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soyfer, V. (1994), Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar

Speelman, C. (1998), “Implicit Expertise: Do We Expect Too Much From Our Experts?,” in Kirsner, K., Speelman, C., Maybery, M., O'Brien-Malone, A., Anderson, M., MacLeod, C. (eds.), Implicit and Explicit Mental Processes, Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 135–148.Google Scholar

Spring, R. J. (1975), “Vindicating the periodic law,” Education in Chemistry, 12: 134–138.Google Scholar

Stanford, P. K. (2000), “An Anti-Realist Explanation of the Success of Science,” Philosophy of Science, 67: 266–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strathern, P. (2000), The Quest for the Elements, New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar

Suppe, F. (1998), “The Structure of a Scientific Paper,” Philosophy of Science, 65 (3): 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thomason, N. (1992), “Could Lakatos, Even With Zahar's Criterion for Novel Fact, Evaluate the Copernican Research Programme?,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43: 161–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Fraassen, B.(1988), “The Problem of Old Evidence,” in Austin, D. F. (ed.)., Philosophical Analysis, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraassen, B.(1989), Laws and Symmetry, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Velikovsky, I. (1950), Worlds in Collision, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Velikovsky, I.(1955), Earth in Upheaval, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Venable, F. P. (1896), The Development of the Periodic Law, Chemical Publishing Co., Easton, PA.Google Scholar

Spronson, J. W. (1969), The Periodic System of Chemical Elements: A History of the First Hundred Years, Amsterdam, London and New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Wagner, C. (1978), “Consensus Through Respect: A Model of Rational Group Decision Making,” Philosophical Studies, 34: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, C.(1981), “The Formal Foundations of Lehrer's Theory of Consensus,” in Bogdan, R. U. (ed.) Profile: Keith Lehrer, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Wagner, C.(1997), “Old evidence and new explanation,” Philosophy of Science, 64: 677–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, C.(1999), “Old evidence and new explanation II,” Philosophy of Science, 66: 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, C.(2001), “Old evidence and new explanation III,” Philosophy of Science, 68: s165–s175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. (1997), Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

White, R. (2003), “The Epistemic Advantage of Prediction Over Accommodation,” Mind, 112: 448, 653–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Worrall, J. (1985), “Scientific Discovery and Theory Confirmation,” in Pitt, J. C. (ed.), Change and Progress in Modern Science, pp. 301–331, D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Worrall, J.(1989), “Fresnel, Poisson and the White Spot: The Role of Successful Predictions in the Acceptance of Scientific Theories,” printed in Gooding, D., Pinch, T. and Schaffer, S. (eds.), The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Worrall, J.(2002), “New Evidence for Old,” in Gardenfors, P., Wolenski, J., and Kihania-Placek, K. (eds.), In the Scope of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, vol. 1, pp. 191–209, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Worrall, J.(2005), “Prediction and the ‘Periodic Law’: A Rejoinder to Barnes,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 817–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zahar, E. (1973), “Why did Einstein's Programme supercede Lorentz's?,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 24: 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zahar, E.(1989), Einstein's Revolution, La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar