Which Curie’s Principle?
Is there more than one "Curie's principle"? How far are different formulations legitimate? What are the aspects that make it so scientifically fruitful? This article is devoted to exploring these questions. We begin by discussing Curie's original 1894 article. Then, we consider t...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Language: | en |
| Published: |
UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
2016
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/625244 http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/625244 |
| id |
ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-625244 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
oai_dc |
| spelling |
ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-6252442017-08-12T03:00:34Z Which Curie’s Principle? Castellani, Elena Ismael, Jenann Univ Arizona, Dept Philosophy Is there more than one "Curie's principle"? How far are different formulations legitimate? What are the aspects that make it so scientifically fruitful? This article is devoted to exploring these questions. We begin by discussing Curie's original 1894 article. Then, we consider the way that the discussion of the principle took shape from early commentators to its modern form. We say why we think that the modern focus on the interstate version of the principle loses sight of some of the most significant applications of the principle. Finally, we address criticisms of the principle put forward by John Norton and Bryan Roberts. 2016-12 Article Which Curie’s Principle? 2016, 83 (5):1002 Philosophy of Science 0031-8248 1539-767X 10.1086/687933 http://hdl.handle.net/10150/625244 http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/625244 Philosophy of Science en http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/687933 Copyright © 2016 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved. UNIV CHICAGO PRESS |
| collection |
NDLTD |
| language |
en |
| sources |
NDLTD |
| description |
Is there more than one "Curie's principle"? How far are different formulations legitimate? What are the aspects that make it so scientifically fruitful? This article is devoted to exploring these questions. We begin by discussing Curie's original 1894 article. Then, we consider the way that the discussion of the principle took shape from early commentators to its modern form. We say why we think that the modern focus on the interstate version of the principle loses sight of some of the most significant applications of the principle. Finally, we address criticisms of the principle put forward by John Norton and Bryan Roberts. |
| author2 |
Univ Arizona, Dept Philosophy |
| author_facet |
Univ Arizona, Dept Philosophy Castellani, Elena Ismael, Jenann |
| author |
Castellani, Elena Ismael, Jenann |
| spellingShingle |
Castellani, Elena Ismael, Jenann Which Curie’s Principle? |
| author_sort |
Castellani, Elena |
| title |
Which Curie’s Principle? |
| title_short |
Which Curie’s Principle? |
| title_full |
Which Curie’s Principle? |
| title_fullStr |
Which Curie’s Principle? |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Which Curie’s Principle? |
| title_sort |
which curie’s principle? |
| publisher |
UNIV CHICAGO PRESS |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/625244 http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/625244 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT castellanielena whichcuriesprinciple AT ismaeljenann whichcuriesprinciple |
| _version_ |
1718515799703945216 |