Timothy D Lyons
Biographic Data
| ID | 1022192 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Timothy D Lyons |
| GIVEN NAMES | Timothy D |
| FAMILY NAME | Lyons |
| SIGNATURE | LYONS T D |
| AFFILIATIONS | Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 6 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 48 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 6 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2003 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2019 |
| H-INDEX | 4 |
Systematicity theory meets Socratic scientific realism
Epistemic selectivity, historical threats, and the non-epistemic tenets of scientific realism
Structural realism versus deployment realism
Criteria for Attributing Predictive Responsibility in the Scientific Realism Debate
Criteria for Attributing Predictive Responsibility in the Scientific Realism Debate: Deployment, Essentiality, Belief, Retention ... The most promising contemporary form of epistemic scientific realism is based on the following intuition: Belief should be directed, not toward theories as wholes, but toward particular theoretical constituents that are responsible for, or deployed in, key successes. While the debate on deployment realism is quite f…
Scientific Realism and the Stratagema de Divide et Impera
In response to historical challenges, advocates of a sophisticated variant of scientific realism emphasize that theoretical systems can be divided into numerous constituents. Setting aside any epistemic commitment to the systems themselves, they maintain that we can justifiably believe those specific constituents that are deployed in key successful predictions. Stathis Psillos articulates an explicit criterion for discerning exactly which theoret…
Explaining the Success of a Scientific Theory
Scientific realists have claimed that the posit that our theories are (approximately) true provides the best or the only explanation for their success. In response, I revive two nonrealist explanations. I show that realists, in discarding them, have either misconstrued the phenomena to be explained or mischaracterized the relationship between these explanations and their own. I contend nonetheless that these nonrealist competitors, as well as the…
Scientific Realism and the Stratagema de Divide et Impera
In response to historical challenges, advocates of a sophisticated variant of scientific realism emphasize that theoretical systems can be divided into numerous constituents. Setting aside any epistemic commitment to the systems themselves, they maintain that we can justifiably believe those specific constituents that are deployed in key successful predictions. Stathis Psillos articulates an explicit criterion for discerning exactly which theoret…
Explaining the Success of a Scientific Theory
Scientific realists have claimed that the posit that our theories are (approximately) true provides the best or the only explanation for their success. In response, I revive two nonrealist explanations. I show that realists, in discarding them, have either misconstrued the phenomena to be explained or mischaracterized the relationship between these explanations and their own. I contend nonetheless that these nonrealist competitors, as well as the…
Structural realism versus deployment realism
Epistemic selectivity, historical threats, and the non-epistemic tenets of scientific realism
Systematicity theory meets Socratic scientific realism
Criteria for Attributing Predictive Responsibility in the Scientific Realism Debate
Criteria for Attributing Predictive Responsibility in the Scientific Realism Debate: Deployment, Essentiality, Belief, Retention ... The most promising contemporary form of epistemic scientific realism is based on the following intuition: Belief should be directed, not toward theories as wholes, but toward particular theoretical constituents that are responsible for, or deployed in, key successes. While the debate on deployment realism is quite f…
Explaining the Success of a Scientific Theory
Scientific realists have claimed that the posit that our theories are (approximately) true provides the best or the only explanation for their success. In response, I revive two nonrealist explanations. I show that realists, in discarding them, have either misconstrued the phenomena to be explained or mischaracterized the relationship between these explanations and their own. I contend nonetheless that these nonrealist competitors, as well as the…
Scientific Realism and the Stratagema de Divide et Impera
In response to historical challenges, advocates of a sophisticated variant of scientific realism emphasize that theoretical systems can be divided into numerous constituents. Setting aside any epistemic commitment to the systems themselves, they maintain that we can justifiably believe those specific constituents that are deployed in key successful predictions. Stathis Psillos articulates an explicit criterion for discerning exactly which theoret…
Criteria for Attributing Predictive Responsibility in the Scientific Realism Debate
Criteria for Attributing Predictive Responsibility in the Scientific Realism Debate: Deployment, Essentiality, Belief, Retention ... The most promising contemporary form of epistemic scientific realism is based on the following intuition: Belief should be directed, not toward theories as wholes, but toward particular theoretical constituents that are responsible for, or deployed in, key successes. While the debate on deployment realism is quite f…
Structural realism versus deployment realism
Epistemic selectivity, historical threats, and the non-epistemic tenets of scientific realism
Systematicity theory meets Socratic scientific realism
Epistemology (6 works) · Philosophy (6 works) · Philosophy and History of Science (6 works) · Realism (5 works) · Science and Climate Studies (4 works) · Scientific realism (4 works) · Computer Science (3 works) · Psychology (3 works) · Scientific theory (3 works) · Software deployment (3 works)