Purcell, EM, Pound RV: A Nuclear Spin System at Negative Temperature. Physical Review 1951, 81:279–280.Google Scholar

Needham, P: Determining Sameness of Substance. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2017, 68(4):953–979, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axv050.Google Scholar

Firestein, S: Ignorance. Oxford University Press 2012.Google Scholar

Sills, J: Why Science? Scientists Share Their Stories. Science 2017, 356(6338): 590–592.Google Scholar

Gauch, HG: Scientific Method in Brief. Cambridge University Press 2012.Google Scholar

Popper, KR: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge 1959.Google Scholar

How Our Dictionaries Are Created. In Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press 2014.Google Scholar

Ross, S: Scientist: The Story of a Word. Annals of Science 1962, 18(2):65–85.Google Scholar

Bacon, F: Novum Organum by Lord Bacon. P. F. Collier & Son 1902.Google Scholar

Markie, P, Folescu, M: Rationalism vs. Empiricism. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#1.2.Google Scholar

Atchison, J: Language Change: Progress or Decay. Cambridge University Press 2001.Google Scholar

Shapiro, AE: Newton’s “Experimental Philosophy.” Early Science and Medicine 2004, 9(3):185–217.Google Scholar

Pasnau, R: After Certainty. A History of Our Epistemic Ideals and Illusions. Oxford University Press 2017.Google Scholar

Science. In Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press 2014, www.oed.com/view/Entry/172672?redirectedFrom=science#eid.Google Scholar

Weaver, W: Science and Complexity. American Scientist 1948, 36: 536–544.Google Scholar

Smart, JJC: Between Science and Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Random House 1968.Google Scholar

Nagel, E: The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World 1961.Google Scholar

Van, Fraassen BC: The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press 1980.Google Scholar

Elliott, K, McKaughan, D: Non-Epistemic Values and the Multiple Goals of Science. Philosophy of Science 2014, 81:1–21.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc. 1922.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P: Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Philosophia 2008, 36:167–180.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P: Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Oxford University Press 2013.Google Scholar

Roddenberry, G: The Immunity Syndrome. Star Trek. Episode 18. NBC. January 19, 1968Google Scholar

Nickles, T: The Problem of Demarcation. University of Chicago Press 2013.Google Scholar

Schindler, S: Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory. Cambridge University Press 2018, www.cambridge.org/core/books/theoretical-virtues-in-science/BEECC887D80F03C8FFAC1EDBA0D30B05.Google Scholar

Pigliucci, M, Boudry, M: Why the Demarcation Problem Matters. University of Chicago Press 2013:1–6.Google Scholar

Alters, BJ: Whose Nature of Science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1997, 34:39–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-P.Google Scholar

Bormann, K: The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The Monist 1979, 62:30–42.Google Scholar

Preus, A: Historical Dictionary of Ancient Greek Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd edition 2015.Google Scholar

Mulligan, K, Correia, F: Facts. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2013 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2013.Google Scholar

Wikipedia: Fact 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact.Google Scholar

Eliot, TS: Fragment of the Agon, in Sweeney Agonistes. In The Complete Poems and Plays, 1909–1950, Harcourt Brace & Company 1952: 80–81. [Unfinished poem].Google Scholar

Sargent, RM: The Dissident Naturalist. Robert Boyle and the Philosophy of Experiment. University of Chicago Press 1995.Google Scholar

Franklin, A: Review Essay: Experimental Questions. Perspectives on Science 1993, 1:127–146.Google Scholar

Pickering, A: Science as Practice and Culture. University of Chicago Press 1992.Google Scholar

Bauer, HH: Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. University of Illinois Press 1992.Google Scholar

Sparkes, A, et al. Towards Robot Scientists for Autonomous Scientific Discovery. Automated Experimentation 2010, 2:1–1, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20119518.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M: Personal Knowledge. University of Chicago Press 1958.Google Scholar

Chang, H: Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford University Press 2004.Google Scholar

Ireland, J: “Udana” and the “Itivuttaka”: Two Classics from the Pali Canon. Buddhist Publication Society 1997.Google Scholar

Asquith, PD, Kyburg, HE (Eds): Research in Philosophy of Science Bearing on Science Education. Philosophy of Science Association 1979.Google Scholar

Matthews, MR: Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. Routledge 1994.Google Scholar

Santayana, G: Reasons in Common Sense. In The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress, Volume 1, Charles Scribner’s Sons 1917.Google Scholar

Boyle, R: The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle. In Six Volumes. To Which Is Prefixed the Life of the Author. J. and F. Rivington 1772.Google Scholar

Bauerle, C, et al.: Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar

Massimi, M: Perspectivism. Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy 2017:164–175.Google Scholar

Chang, H: Is Water H₂O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. In Boston Series in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 293. Edited by Cohen RS, Renn, J, Gavroglu, K, Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2012.Google Scholar

Cavendish, H, et al. XXXVII. The Report of the Committee Appointed by the Royal Society to Consider of the Best Method of Adjusting the Fixed Points of Thermometers; and of the Precautions Necessary to Be Used in Making Experiments with Those Instruments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 1777, 67:816–857, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstl.1777.0038.Google Scholar

Chang, H: The Myth of the Boiling Point. Science Progress 2008, 91(3):219–240, www.jstor.org/stable/43423228.Google Scholar

Kenrick, FB, Gilbert, CS, Wismer, KL: The Superheating of Liquids. The Journal of Physical Chemistry 1923, 28(12):1297–1307, https://doi.org/10.1021/j150246a009.Google Scholar

Soffar, H: What Are the Importance of Atomic Clocks and How Do They Work 2018, www.online-sciences.com/technology/what-are-the-importance-of-the-atomic-clocks-and-how-do-they-work/.Google Scholar

Grebing, C, et al. Realization of a Timescale with an Accurate Optical Lattice Clock. Optica 2016, 3(6):563–569, www.osapublishing.org/optica/abstract.cfm?URI=optica-3-6-563.Google Scholar

Starr, M: We Now Have Atomic Clocks so Precise, They Could Detect Space-Time Distortion 2018, www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-developed-atomic-clocks-so-precise-they-could-detect-gravitational-waves.Google Scholar

Blokker, E, et al. The Chemical Bond: When Atom Size Instead of Electronegativity Difference Determines Trend in Bond Strength. Chemistry – A European Journal 2021, 27(63):15616–15622, https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202103544.Google Scholar

Hayes, W: Max Ludwig Henning Delbrück 1906–1981. National Academy of Sciences 1993.Google Scholar

Delbrück, M: The Arrow of Time – Beginning and End. Engineering & Science 1978.Google Scholar

Judson, HF: The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology. Simon and Shuster 1979.Google Scholar

Delbrück, M: Light and Life III. Carlsberg Research Communications 1976, 41(6):299–309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02906138.Google Scholar

Bohr, N: Light and Life. Nature 1933, 131(3308):421–423, https://doi.org/10.1038/131421a0.Google Scholar

McKaughan, DJ: The Influence of Niels Bohr on Max Delbruck: Revisiting the Hopes Inspired by “Light and Life”. Isis 2005, 96(4):507–529, https://doi.org/10.1086/498591.Google Scholar

Fischer, EP, Lipson C: Thinking About Science: Max Delbrück and the Origins of Molecular Biology. W.W. Norton & Company 1988.Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E: What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge University Press 1967.Google Scholar

Timoféeff-Ressovsky, NW, Zimmer, KG, Delbrück, M: Über die Natur der Genmutation und der Genstruktur. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: mathematisch-physische Klasse, Fachgruppe VI: Biologie 1 1935, 6(13):189–245.Google Scholar

Abir-Am, P: The Discourse of Physical Power and Biological Knowledge in the 1930s: A Reappraisal of the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Policy” in Molecular Biology. Social Studies of Science 1982, 12(3):341–382, www.jstor.org/stable/284665.Google Scholar

Harding, C: Max Delbrück (1906–1981), http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Delbruck_M.Google Scholar

Ellis, EL, Delbrück M: The Growth of Bacteriophage. The Journal of General Physiology 1939, 22(3):365–384.Google Scholar

Luria, SE, Delbrück M: Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance. Genetics 1943, 28(6):491–511, www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491.Google Scholar

Gad, S: 1969, www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1969/ceremony-speech/.Google Scholar

Kendrew, JC: How Molecular Biology Started. Scientific American 1967, 216(3):141–144, www.jstor.org/stable/24931441.Google Scholar

Timmerman, LD: Hood: Trailblazer of the Genomics Age. Bandera Press LLC 2017, https://books.google.com/books?id=bjOHDAEACAAJ.Google Scholar

Hood, LE: My Life and Adventures Integrating Biology and Technology 2002, www.kyotoprize.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/18kA_lct_EN.pdf.Google Scholar

Willyard, C: New Human Gene Tally Reignites Debate. Nature 2018, 558(7710):354, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05462-w.Google Scholar

Salzberg, SL: Open Questions: How Many Genes Do We Have? BMC Biology 2018, 16:94–94, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30124169.Google Scholar

Dreyer, WJ, Bennett JC: The Molecular Basis of Antibody Formation: A Paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1965, 54(3):864–869, www.pnas.org/content/54/3/864.Google Scholar

Dr. Henry, Huang, Plaintiff v. California Institute of Technology, et al. Defendant Case No. CV 03-1140 MRP 2004.Google Scholar

Department of Molecular Biotechnology 2001, http://nick-lab.gs.washington.edu/mbt-web/.Google Scholar

Ideker, T, Galitski, T, Hood L: A New Approach to Decoding Life: Systems Biology. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 2001, 2:343–372, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.2.1.343. [PMID: 11701654].Google Scholar

Institute for Systems Biology 2000, https://systemsbiology.org/.Google Scholar

Clough, M: Teaching and Assessing the Nature of Science: How to Effectively Incorporate the Nature of Science in Your Classroom. The Science Teacher 2011, 78:56–60.Google Scholar

Clough, MP: History and Nature of Science in Science Education. SensePublishers 2017:39–51, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_3.Google Scholar

Thomas, L: The Wonderful Mistake: Notes of a Biology Watcher: Incorporating the Lives of a Cell, and, the Medusa and the Snail. Oxford University Press 1988.Google Scholar

Merton, RK: Social Theory and Social Structure, Rev. ed. Free Press 1957.Google Scholar

Angli, GH: Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus. Charles C. Thomas 1928.Google Scholar

Feynman, R: No Ordinary Genius: The Illustrated Richard Feynman. W.W. Norton 1994.Google Scholar

Brewster, D: Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, Volume 2. Thomas Constable and Co. 1855.Google Scholar

Lynd, RY: The Pleasures of Ignorance. Methuen 1928.Google Scholar

Department of Defense News Briefing – Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers https://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636.Google Scholar

de, Magalhães JP, Wang J: The Fog of Genetics: Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns in the Genetics of Complex Traits and Diseases. bioRxiv 2019, www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/02/18/553685.Google Scholar

Johnson, S: Farsighted. How We Make the Decisions That Matter the Most. Riverhead Books 2018.Google Scholar

Valentin, J (Ed): The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP 2007, 37(2–4):1–332.Google Scholar

Weinberg, AM: Science and Trans-Science. Minerva 1972, 10(2):209–222.Google Scholar

Geer, Jr DE: Unknowable Unknowns. IEEE Security Privacy 2019, 17(2):80–79.Google Scholar

Haldane, JBS: Possible Worlds: And Other Essays. Chatto and Windus 1927.Google Scholar

Žižek, S: Philosophy, the “Unknown Knowns,” and the Public Use of Reason. Topoi 2006, 25:137–142, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-006-0021-2.Google Scholar

Gross, M, McGoey L: Introduction. Routledge 2015.Google Scholar

Gross, M, McGoey L: Introduction. In Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. Edited by Gross M, McGoey L, Routledge 2015:1–14.Google Scholar

Duncan, R, Weston-Smith M (Eds): The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Unknown. Pergamon Press 1977.Google Scholar

Little, B: From the Editor. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 1985, 2(3):131–133.Google Scholar

Smithson, M: Ignorance and Science: Dilemmas, Perspectives, and Prospects. Knowledge 1993, 15(2):133–156, https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709301500202.Google Scholar

Smithson, M: Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms. Cognitive Science. Springer-Verlag Publishing 1989.Google Scholar

Kassar, NE: What Ignorance Really Is. Examining the Foundations of Epistemology of Ignorance. Social Epistemology 2018, 32(5):300–310, https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1518498.Google Scholar

LeMorvan, P: On Ignorance: A Reply to Peels. Philosophia 2011, 39(2):335–344, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-010-9292-3.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, MJ: Living with Uncertainty: The Moral Significance of Ignorance. Cambridge University Press 2008.Google Scholar

Medina, J: The Epistemology of Resistance. Oxford University Press 2013.Google Scholar

Alcoff, LM: Epistemologies of Ignorance. Three Types. State University of New York Press 2007.Google Scholar

Tuana, N: The Speculum of Ignorance: The Women’s Health Movement and Epistemologies of Ignorance. Hypatia 2006, 21(3):1–19.Google Scholar

Proctor, RN, Schiebinger L (Eds): Agnotology. The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press 2008.Google Scholar

Peels, R: What Is Ignorance? Philosophia 2010, 38:57–67, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-009-9202-8.Google Scholar

Goldman, AI, Olsso EJ: Epistemic Value. In Reliabilism and the Value of Knowledge, Handbook of Stuff I Care About. Edited by Pritchard D, Haddock, A, Millar, A, Oxford University Press 2009:19–41.Google Scholar

DeNicola, DR: Understanding Ignorance: The Surprising Impact of What We Don’t Know. MIT Press 2017.Google Scholar

Shea, A: Reading the OED: One Man, one Year, 21,730 pages. Penguin 2008.Google Scholar

Haas, J, Vogt KM: Ignorance and Investigation. In Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. Edited by Gross M, McGoey L, Routledge 2015: 17–25.Google Scholar

Kinsey, A, Pomeroy, W, Martin C: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Indiana University Press 1998, https://books.google.com/books?id=pfMKrY3VvigC.Google Scholar

Kinsey, A, for Sex Research I: Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Indiana University Press 1998, https://books.google.com/books?id=9GpBB61LV14C.Google Scholar

Masters, WH, Johnson VE: Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown 1966.Google Scholar

Masters, W, Johnson V: Human Sexual Inadequacy. Little, Brown 1970, https://books.google.com/books?id=W-JrAAAAMAAJ.Google Scholar

Descartes, R: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, M. Walter Dunne 1901.Google Scholar

Ravetz, JR: The Sin of Science: Ignorance of Ignorance. Knowledge 1993, 15(2):157–165, https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709301500203.Google Scholar

Burrow, GN: The Body of Medical Knowledge Required Today Far Exceeds What Students Can Learn in 4 Years. The Chronicle of Higher Education 1990.Google Scholar

Witte, MH, Crown, P, Bernas, M, Garcia, FA: “Ignoramics” in Medical and Premedical Education. Journal of Investigative Medicine 2008, 56(7):897–901.Google Scholar

Kerwin, A: None Too Solid: Medical Ignorance. Knowledge 1993, 15(2):166–185, https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709301500204.Google Scholar

Keniston, AH, Peden BF: Infusing Critical Thinking into College Courses. Issue in Teaching and Learning 1992, 4:7–12.Google Scholar

Peden, BF, Keniston A: Methods for Critical Thinking. Wisconsin Dialogue 1991, 11:12–34.Google Scholar

Stocking, SH: Ignorance-Based Instruction in Higher Education. The Journalism Educator 1992, 47(3):43–53, https://doi.org/10.1177/107769589204700306.Google Scholar

Witte, M, Kerwin, A, Witte CL: The Curriculum on Medical Ignorance: Coursebook & Resource Manuals for Instructors and Students. The University of Arizona College of Medicine.Google Scholar

Schwartz, MA: The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research. Journal of Cell Science 2008, 121(11):1771–1771, http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771.Google Scholar

Kerwin, A: Ignorance and Scientific Progress. Lymphology 1986, 19:31–32.Google Scholar

Popper, K: Logik Der Forschung. Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Springer-Verlag 1935.Google Scholar

Nola, R: After Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend: Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method. Springer Science + Business Media 2000.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P: Against Method. Verso 1975.Google Scholar

Tattersall, I: What’s So Special about Science? Evolution: Education and Outreach 2008, 1:36–41.Google Scholar

Weinberg, S: The Methods of Science … and Those by Which We Live. Academic Questions 1995, 8(2):7–13.Google Scholar

Sober, E: Ockham’s Razor-A User’s Manual. Cambridge University Press 2015.Google Scholar

Stuart, MT, Fehige, Y: Motivating the History of the Philosophy of Thought Experiments. Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2021, 11:212–221.Google Scholar

Fehige, Y: The Annus Mirabilis of 1986: Thought Experiments and Scientific Pluralism. Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2021, 11:222–240.Google Scholar

Einstein, A: How I Created the Theory of Relativity. Physics Today 1982, 35:45–47.Google Scholar

Einstein, A: Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Verlag der königlichen akademie der wissenschaften 1915.Google Scholar

Dyson, F, Eddington, A, Davidson C: A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 220:291–333.Google Scholar

Abbott, BP: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters 2016, 116:061102.Google Scholar

Einstein, A, et al.: On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It. Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik 1907, 4:411–462.Google Scholar

Cartlidge, E: Relativity Survives Drop Test. Science 2017, 358.Google Scholar

Touboul, P, et al. MICROSCOPE Mission: First Results of a Space Test of the Equivalence Principle. Physical Review Letters 2017, 119:231101.Google Scholar

Suter, R: Aristotle and the Scientific Method. The Scientific Monthly 1939, 49(5):468–472.Google Scholar

Shuttleworth, M: History of the Scientific Method. Explorable 2009, https://explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method.Google Scholar

Koyré, A: The Origins of Modern Science: A New Interpretation. Diogenes 1956, 4(16):1–22.Google Scholar

van Middendorp, Joost J, Sanchez, GM, Burridge AL: The Edwin Smith Papyrus: A Clinical Reappraisal of the Oldest Known Document on Spinal Injuries. European Spine Journal 2010, 19(11):1815–1823, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989268/.Google Scholar

Breasted, JH: The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus Published in Facsimile and Hieroglyphic Transliteration. University of Chicago Press 1930.Google Scholar

Gordetsky, J, O’Brien J: Urology and the Scientific Method in Ancient Egypt. Urology 2009, 73(3):476–479.Google Scholar

Brawanski, A: On the Myth of the Edwin Smith Papyrus: Is It Magic or Science? Acta Neurochirurgica 2012, 154(12):2285–2291.Google Scholar

Aristotle: De Generatione Animalium, Volume 3 c350BC.Google Scholar

Gomperz, T: Greek Thinkers: A History of Ancient Philosophy, Volume 4. John Murray 1912.Google Scholar

Shields, C: Aristotle. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN 2015, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/.Google Scholar

Kattsoff, LO: Ptolemy and Scientific Method: A Note on the History of an Idea. Isis 1947, 38(1/2):18–22.Google Scholar

Kuhn, TS: The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, Volume 16. Harvard University Press 1957.Google Scholar

Hughes, M: Claudius Ptolemy: 2nd Century Egyptian Astronomer. Perth Observatory 2016.Google Scholar

al, Khalili J: Pathfinders: The Golden Age of Arabic Science. Penguin Books 2010.Google Scholar

Ahmad, I: Islamic Contributions to Modern Scientific Methods. Journal of Faith and Science Exchange 2012:27–36, http://hdl.handle.net/2144/3968.Google Scholar

Holmyard, EJ: Makers of Chemistry. Clarendon Press 1931.Google Scholar

Gorini, R: Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision. Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine 2003, 2(4):53–55.Google Scholar

Daneshfard, B, Dalfardi, B, Nezhad GSM: Ibn al-Haytham (965–1039 AD), the Original Portrayal of the Modern Theory of Vision. Journal of Medical Biography 2016, 24(2):227–231.Google Scholar

Bsoul, LA: Classical Muslim Scholars’ Development of the Experimental Scientific Method: ‘Iml al-Istiqrā’/induction Approach and Methodology. Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies R & D 2017, 2(4):1–33.Google Scholar

Scientific Method 2018, www.wiki30.com/wa?s=scientific_method.Google Scholar

Dales, RC: Richard Grosseteste and Scientific Method, Volume 57. University of Pennsylvania Press 1973.Google Scholar

Crombie, AC: Grosseteste’s Position in the History of Science 1955:98–120.Google Scholar

Clagett, M: Greek Science in Antiquity. Abelard-Schuman 1955.Google Scholar

Weisheipl, JA: Life and Works of St. Albert. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1980 chap. 1:13–51.Google Scholar

Lindberg, DC: The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450. University of Chicago Press 1992.Google Scholar

Hume, D: A TREATISE of Human Nature: BEING An Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning INTO MORAL SUBJECTS. John Noon 1739.Google Scholar

Wallace, WA: Albertus Magnus on Suppositional Necessity in the Natural Sciences. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1980 chap. 4:103–128.Google Scholar

Thorndike, L: A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume II. Columbia University Press 1923.Google Scholar

Easton, SC: Roger Bacon and His Search for a Universal Science 1952.Google Scholar

Hackett, J: Roger Bacon and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays 1996, Volume 57. Brill 1997.Google Scholar

The Center for Islamic Studies: Scientific Method. https://islamic-study.org/scientific-method/.Google Scholar

Beale, S: Four Things You Need to Know about John Duns Scotus. Catholic Exchange 2014, https://catholicexchange.com/four-things-need-know-john-dunsscotus.Google Scholar

Losee, J: A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press, 4th edition 2001.Google Scholar

Losee, J: Theories of Causality: From Antiquity to the Present. Routledge 2017.Google Scholar

Thorburn, WM: The Myth of Occam’s Razor. Mind 1918, 27(107):345–353.Google Scholar

Crombie, AC: The Significance of Medieval Discussions of Scientific Method for the Scientific Revolution, University of Wisconsin Press 1959 chap. 3:79–101.Google Scholar

Adams, MM: William Ockham, 2 vols, Volume 2. University of Notre Dame Press 1987.Google Scholar

Occam’s, Razor 2018, www.oed.com/view/Entry/234636?redirectedFrom=Ockham%27s+razor#eid.Google Scholar

Pacer, M, Lombrozo, T: Ockham’s Razor Cuts to the Root: Simplicity in Causal Explanation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2017, 146(12):1761– 1780.Google Scholar

Hübener, W: Occam’s Razor Not Mysterious. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 1983, 27:73–92, www.jstor.org/stable/24362877.Google Scholar

Scientific, Method. In Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press 2014.Google Scholar

Rees, G, Wakely, M: The Instauratio magna Part II: Novum organum and Associated Texts. Clarendon Press 2004.Google Scholar

Malherbe, M: Bacon’s Method of Science. Cambridge University Press 1996 chap. 3:75–98.Google Scholar

Snyder, LJ: Renovating the Novum Organum: Bacon, Whewell and Induction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 1999, 30(4):531–557.Google Scholar

Einstein, A: Ideas and Opinions. Bonanza Books 1954, https://books.google.com/books?id=FFcNAQAAMAAJ.Google Scholar

Hawking, Stephen: A Brief History of Time. Updated and Expanded Tenth Anniversary Edition. Bantam Books 1998, https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999837008202121.Google Scholar

Viviani, V: Historical Account of the Life of Galileo Galilei. In On the Life of Galileo. Edited by Gattei S, Princeton University Press 2019, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc772t2.Google Scholar

Martinez, AA: Science Secrets: the Truth About Darwin’s Finches, Einstein’s Wife, and Other Myths. University of Pittsburgh Press 2011.Google Scholar

Wootton, D: Galileo: Watcher of the Skies. Yale University Press 2010.Google Scholar

Crombie, AC: Medieval and Early Modern Science, Volume II. Doubleday Anchor Books 1959.Google Scholar

Galilie, G: Il Saggiatore (The Assayer) 1623.Google Scholar

Crombie, AC: Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science 1100– 1700. Oxford University Press 1953.Google Scholar

Galilie, G: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican. Modern Library 2001.Google Scholar

Galilie, G: Two New Sciences, Including Centers of Gravity and Force of Percussion. University of Wisconsin Press 1974.Google Scholar

Kuhn, TS: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press 1962.Google Scholar

Noland, A, Wiener PP: Roots of Scientific Thought: A Cultural Perspective. Basic Books 1957.Google Scholar

Clavelin, M: The Natural Philosophy of Galileo. MIT Press 1974.Google Scholar

Flage, DE, Bonnen CA: Descartes and Method: A Search for a Method in Meditations. Routledge 1999.Google Scholar

Descartes, R: Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by Donald A. Cress. Hackett, 4th edition 1993.Google Scholar

Russell, B: A History of Western Philosophy. Simon & Shuster 1945.Google Scholar

Browne, A: Descartes’s Dreams. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 1977, 40:256–273, www.jstor.org/stable/750999.Google Scholar

Davies, R: Descartes: Belief, Scepticism and Virtue. Routledge 2001.Google Scholar

Schuster, J: Whatever Should We Do with the Cartesian Method? Reclaiming Descartes for the History of Science. Oxford University Press 1993.Google Scholar

Garber, D: Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. University of Chicago Press 1992.Google Scholar

Leibniz, GW: Philosophical Essays. Hackett 1989.Google Scholar

Hatfield, G: Science, Certainty, and Descartes. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988, 1988:249–262, www.jstor.org/stable/192888.Google Scholar

Garber, D: Descartes and Method in 1637. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1998, 2.Google Scholar

Whewell, W: The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon Their History, Volume 2. John W. Parker 1847.Google Scholar

Shouls, PA: Reason, Method, and Science in the Philosophy of Descartes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 1972, 50:30–39.Google Scholar

Boyle, R: New Experiments PHYSICO-MECHANICAL Touching the Air Whereunto is added A Defense of the Author’s Explication of the EXPERIMENTS, against the OBJECTIONS OF Franciscus Linus and Thomas Hobbs. H. Hall for Thomas Robinson, 3rd edition 1662.Google Scholar

Davidson, JS: Online Annotations to Robert Boyle’s Sceptical Chymist. Journal of Chemical Education 2003, 80(5):487.Google Scholar

West, JB: Robert Boyle’s Landmark Book of 1660 with the First Experiments on Rarified Air. Journal of Applied Physiology 2005, 98:31–39.Google Scholar

Boyle, R: Certain Physiological Essays and Other Tracts; Written at Distant Times, and on Several Occasions. Henry Herringman, 2nd edition 1669, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MNVAnQAACAAJ.Google Scholar

Cohen, IB: Franklin and Newton: An Inquiry into Speculative Newtonian Experimental Science and Franklin’s Work in Electricity as an Example Thereof. American Philosophical Society: Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, American Philosophical Society 1956, https://books.google.com/books?id=mbUVAAAAIAAJ.Google Scholar

Domski, M: Philosophy of Science in Newton’s General Scholium 2013.Google Scholar

Hall, LJ, Nomura Y: Evidence for the Multiverse in the Standard Model and Beyond. Physical Review D 2008, 78(3):035001–1–035001–42, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.035001.Google Scholar

Chaudhury, PJ: Newton and Hypothesis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1962, 22(3):344–353.Google Scholar

Cohen, IB: The Principia, the Newtonian Style, and the Newtonian Revolution. University of Delaware Press 2012.Google Scholar

Smith, GE: The Methodology of the Principia. Cambridge University Press 2002 chap. 4:138–173.Google Scholar

Motte, A: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Sir Isaac Newton, translated by Andrew Motte. Benjamin Motte 1729.Google Scholar

Ducheyne, S: The Main Business of Natural Philosophy. Springer 2012.Google Scholar

Butts, RE: William Whewell Theory or Scientific Method. Hackett 1989.Google Scholar

Minto, W: Logic Inductive and Deductive. Charles Scribner’s Sons 1894.Google Scholar

Cowles, HM: The Age of Methods: William Whewell, Charles Peirce, and Scientific Kinds. Isis 2016, 107(4):722–737.Google Scholar

Darwin, C: The Origin of Species. P. F. Collier 1909.Google Scholar

Herschel, JFW: A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. In The Cabinet Cyclopaedia. Edited by Lardner D. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Taylor 1831.Google Scholar

Cobb, AD: Inductivism in Practice: Experiment in John Herschel’s Philosophy of Science. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2012, 2:21–54.Google Scholar

Butts, RE: William Whewell’s Theory of Scientific Method. University of Pittsburgh Press 1968.Google Scholar

Todhunter, I: William Whewell, D.D., An Account of His Writings, with Selections from His Literary and Scientific Correspondence, in Two Volumes, Volume II. Macmillan and Co. 1876.Google Scholar

Snyder, LJ: Discoverers’ Induction. Philosophy of Science 1997, 64(4):580–604.Google Scholar

Yeo, RR: Scientific Method and the Rhetoric of Science in Britain, 1830–1917, D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986:259–297.Google Scholar

Whewell, W: History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Times, Volume 1. John W. Parker 1837.Google Scholar

Firestein, S: Failure: Why Science Is So Successful. Oxford University Press 2016.Google Scholar

Putnam, H: Mathematics, Matter, and Method, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition 1975.Google Scholar

Macleod, C: John Stuart Mill 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/mill/.Google Scholar

Mill, JS: A system of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. Longmans, Green and Company 1884.Google Scholar

Ryan, A: The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Macmillan 1970.Google Scholar

Anschutz, RP: The Philosophy of J. S. Mill. Oxford University Press 1953.Google Scholar

Mill, JS: The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812–1848. University of Toronto Press, Volume 12 1963.Google Scholar

Snyder, LJ: Reforming Philosophy – A Victorian Debate on Science and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Edition 2006.Google Scholar

Mill, JS: Autobiography. Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 3rd edition 1874.Google Scholar

LaFollette, H, Shanks N: Animal Experimentation: The Legacy of Claude Bernard. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1994, 8(3):195–210.Google Scholar

Roll-Hansen, N: Critical Teleology: Immanuel Kant and Claude Bernard on the Limitations of Experimental Biology. Journal of the History of Biology 1976, 9:59–91.Google Scholar

Cannon, WB: The Wisdom of the Body. W. W. Norton & Co 1932.Google Scholar

Grmek, MD: Raisonnement Experiméntal et Rechereches Toxicologiques Chez Claude Bernard. Droz 1973.Google Scholar

Medawar, P: Pluto’s Republic: Incorporating The Art of the Soluble & Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. Oxford University Press 1982.Google Scholar

Renan, E: L’Œuvre de Claude Bernard. Bailliere 1881.Google Scholar

Hoefer, C: Causal Determinism. In Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN 2016 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int.Google Scholar

Bernard, C: An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine: Transl. by Henry Copley Greene. Henry Schuman 1949.Google Scholar

Schaffner, KF: Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. University of Chicago Press 1993.Google Scholar

Wikipedia: Claude Bernard 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bernard.Google Scholar

Daston, L: Scientific Error and the Ethos of Belief. Social Research 2005, 72:1–28, www.jstor.org/stable/40972000.Google Scholar

Jensen, MB, Janik, EL, Waclawik AJ: The Early Use of Blinding in Therapeutic Clinical Research of Neurological Disorders. Journal of Neurological Research and Therapy 2016, 1(2):4–16, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27617324.Google Scholar

Stolberg, M: Inventing the Randomized Double-Blind Trial: The Nürenberg Salt Test of 1835. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006, 99(12):642–643.Google Scholar

Zabell, SL: The Rule of Succession. Erkenntnis 1989, 31:283–321.Google Scholar

Samuelson, PA, Koopmans, TC, Stone JRN: Report of the Evaluative Committee for Econometrica. Econometrica 1954, 22(2):141–146, www.jstor.org/stable/1907538.Google Scholar

Laudan, L: Historical Essays on Scientific Methodology, Springer Netherlands. 1981.Google Scholar

Morgan, AD: Formal Logic or, the Calculus of Inference, Necessary and Probable. Taylor and Walton 1847.Google Scholar

Jevons, WS: The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and Scientific Method. Macmillan 1913.Google Scholar

Schabas, M: A World Ruled by Number: William Stanley Jevons and the Rise of Mathematical Economics. Princeton University Press 1990, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7zv0hj.Google Scholar

Jeffreys, H: Scientific Inference. Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition 1973.Google Scholar

Laudan, LL: Induction and Probability in the Nineteenth Century, Volume 74. North Holland 1973.Google Scholar

Boole, G: An Investigation of the Laws of Thought: On Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. Project Gutenberg 2017, www.gutenberg.org/files/15114/15114-pdf.pdf.Google Scholar

Mill, JS: Letter to John Elliot Cairnes. University of Toronto Press and Routledge & Kegan Paul 1871.Google Scholar

Niiniluoto, I: Defending Abduction. Philosophy of Science 1999, 66:S436–S451.Google Scholar

Carnap, R: The Two Concepts of Probability: The Problem of Probability. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1945, 5(4):513–532, www.jstor.org/stable/2102817.Google Scholar

Salmon, WC: Preface. Synthese 1977, 34:ii–2.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H: Experience and Prediction. University of Chicago Press 1938.Google Scholar

Putnam, H: Reichenbach’s Metaphysical Picture. Erkenntnis 1991, 35:61–75.Google Scholar

Savvatimskiy, A: Measurements of the Melting Point of Graphite and the Properties of Liquid Carbon (A Review for 1963–2003). Carbon 2005, 43(6):1115–1142, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008622305000291.Google Scholar

Skyrms, B: Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning 2000.Google Scholar

Hempel, CG: Studies in the Logic of Confirmation. Mind 1945, 54(213):1–26, www.jstor.org/stable/2250886.Google Scholar

Hempel, CG, Oppenheim P: Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science 1948, 15(2):135–175, www.jstor.org/stable/185169.Google Scholar

Hempel, CG: Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation. In Scientific Explanation, Space & Time, Volume III of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by Feigl H, Maxwell G. University of Minnesota Press 1962:98–169.Google Scholar

Balashov, Y, Rosenberg A (Eds): Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. Routledge 2001.Google Scholar

Thornton, R: Karl Popper 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/popper/.Google Scholar

Frank, P: Modern Science and its Philosophy. Harvard University Press 1950.Google Scholar

Blumberg, AE, Feigl H: Logical Positivism. Journal of Philosophy 1931, 28(11):281–296.Google Scholar

Uebel, T: “Logical Positivism”-“Logical Empiricism”: What’s in a Name? Perspectives on Science 2013, 21:58–99.Google Scholar

Richardson, A, Uebel T: The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge University Press 2007.Google Scholar

Friedman, M: Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge University Press 1999.Google Scholar

Stadler, F: Vienna Circle: Logical Empiricism, Volume 25. 2nd edition. Elsevier 2015:87–94.Google Scholar

Kant, I: Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press 1998.Google Scholar

Sahu, KC, et al.: Relativistic Deflection of Background Starlight Measures the Mass of a Nearby White Dwarf Star. Science 2017, 356(6342):1046–1050, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6342/1046.Google Scholar

Weinberg, JR: Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der Modernen Naturwissenschaft. Von KARL POPPER. The Philosophical Review 1936, 45(5):511–514, www.jstor.org/stable/2180508.Google Scholar

Popper, K: Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. Routledge, Taylor and Francis e-Library 2005.Google Scholar

Newton, I: New Theory about Light and Colors. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1671:3075–3087.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, PK: Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. In Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology, Volume 4. Edited by Radner M, Winokur S. University of Minnesota Press 1970:17–130.Google Scholar

Lakatos, I: The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press 1978.Google Scholar

Preston, J, Munvar, G, Lamb D: The Worst Enemy of Science?: Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend. Oxford University Press 2000.Google Scholar

Electrodynamics. In Oxford English Dictionary 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/270111?redirectedFrom=electrodynamics&amp;.Google Scholar

Stadler, F: Paul Feyerabend and the Forgotten “Third Vienna Circle”. Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists 2014, 6:47–66.Google Scholar

Preston, J: Paul Feyerabend. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016 edition. Edited by Zalta EN. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2016.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, PK: Herbert Feigl. A Biographical Sketch. In Mind, Matter, and Method. Essays in Philosophy and Science in Honor of Herbert Feigl. Edited by Feyerabend P, Maxwell, G, University of Minnesota Press 1996:3–13.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P: Killing Time. University of Chicago Press 1995.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P: Science in a Free Society. NLB 1978.Google Scholar

Koertge, N: For and against Method. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1972, 23:274–290.Google Scholar

Nickles, T: Heuristic Appraisal: Context of Discovery or Justification? In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, Springer Netherlands 2006:159–182.Google Scholar

Theocharis, T, Psimopoulos M: Where Science Has Gone Wrong. Nature 1987, 329:595.Google Scholar

Horgan, J: Profile: Paul Karl Feyerabend: The Worst Enemy of Science. Scientific American 1993, 268(5):36–37, www.jstor.org/stable/24941475.Google Scholar

Des-Cartes, R: Meditationes de prima philosophia in qva dei existentia et animæ immortalitas demonstratvr 1641.Google Scholar

Kidd, IJ: Rethinking Feyerabend: The “Worst Enemy of Science”? PLOS Biology 2011, 9(10):1–3.Google Scholar

Shaw, J: Was Feyerabend an Anarchist? The Structure(s) of “Anything Goes”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2017, 64:11–21.Google Scholar

Brown, MJ, Kidd IJ: Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2016, 57:1–8.Google Scholar

Jacobson, R: 2.5 Quintillion Bytes of Data Created Every Day. How Does CPG & Retail Manage It? IBM Consumer Products Industry Blog 2013, www.ibm.com/blogs/insights-on-business/consumer-products/2-5-quintillion-bytes-of-data-created-every-day-how-does-cpg-retail-manage-it/.Google Scholar

Sybrandt, J, Shtutman, M, Safro I: Large-Scale Validation of Hypothesis Generation Systems via Candidate Ranking. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) 2018:1494–1503.Google Scholar

National, Science Board: Long-Lived Digital Data Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the 21st Century. National Science Foundation 2005, www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsb0540/start.htm.Google Scholar

Strasser, BJ: Data-Driven Sciences: From Wonder Cabinets to Electronic Databases. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 2012, 43:85–87, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848611000859.Google Scholar

Gray, J, Szalay A: eScience – A Transformed Scientific Method. Computer Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council 2007.Google Scholar

Bell, G: Foreward. In The Fourth Paradigm. Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Edited by Hey T, Tansley, S, Tolle, K, Microsoft Research 2009:xi.Google Scholar

Hey, T, Tansley, S, Tolle K: The Fourth Paradigm. Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Microsoft Research 2009.Google Scholar

Duman, JG, DeVries AL: Isolation, Characterization, and Physical properties of Protein Antifreezes from the Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Comparative Biochemistry 1976, 54(3):375–380, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305049176902601.Google Scholar

Leonelli, S: Introduction: Making Sense of Data-Driven Research in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 2012, 43:1–3.Google Scholar

Anderson, C: The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete. Wired 2008, 16:07.Google Scholar

Pigliucci, M: The End of Theory in Science? EMBO Reports 2009, 10(6):534–534, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1038/embor.2009.111.Google Scholar

Pyysalo, S, Baker, S, Ali, I, Haselwimmer, S, Shah, T, Young, A, Guo, Y, Högberg J, Stenius, U, Narita, M, Korhonen A: LION LBD: A Literature-Based Discovery System for Cancer Biology. Bioinformatics 2018, bty845:1–9, https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty845.Google Scholar

Nguyen, V, Bodenreider, O, Minning, T, Sheth A: The Knowledge Driven Exploration of Integrated Biomedical Knowledge Sources Facilitates the Generation of New Hypotheses. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Linked Science (LISC 2011) 2011.Google Scholar

Fleming, N: Computer-Calculated Compounds-Researchers Are Deploying Artificial Intelligence to Discover Drugs. Nature 2018, 557:S55–S57, www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-018-05267-x/d41586-018-05267-x.pdf.Google Scholar

Bongard, J, Lipson H: Automated Reverse Engineering of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007, 104(24):9943–9948, www.pnas.org/content/104/24/9943.Google Scholar

Carley, KM: On Generating Hypotheses Using Computer Simulations. Systems Engineering 1999, 2(2):69–77.Google Scholar

Extance, A: AI Tames the Scientific Literature. Nature 2018, 561:273–274.Google Scholar

Evans, J, Rzhetsky A: Machine Science. Science 2010, 329(5990):399–400.Google Scholar

Leonelli, S: Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Approach. University of Chicago Press 2106.Google Scholar

King, RD, Whelan, KE, Jones, FM, Reiser PGK, Bryant, CH, Muggleton, SH, Kell, DB, Oliver SG: Functional Genomic Hypothesis Generation and Experimentation by a Robot Scientist. Nature 2004, 427:247, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02236.Google Scholar

Gutting, G: Scientific Methodology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2017:423–432, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405164481.ch63.Google Scholar

De, Regt HW: Scientific Realism in Action: Molecular Models and Boltzmann’s “Bildtheorie”. Erkenntnis 2005, 63(2):205–230, www.jstor.org/stable/20013358.Google Scholar

Acosta, ND, Golub SH: The New Federalism: State Policies Regarding Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2016, 44(3):419–436, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27587447.Google Scholar

Dresser, R: Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy conversation. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2010, 38(2):332–341, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20579255.Google Scholar

Ayala, FJ: Cloning Humans? Biological, Ethical, and Social Considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2015, 112(29):8879–8886, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26195738.Google Scholar

Varmus, H: Embryos, Cloning, Stem Cells, and the Promise of Reprogramming. W. W. Norton 2009 chap. 13:197–223.Google Scholar

Cressey, D: Controversial UK Research Reform Crosses Finish Line 2017, www.nature.com/news/controversial-uk-research-reform-crosses-finish-line-1.21919?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+news% 2Frss%2Fmost_recent+%28NatureNews+-+Most+recent+articles%29.Google Scholar

Abbott, A, Schiermeier Q: EU Science-The Next Billion. Nature 2019, 569:472–475.Google Scholar

Taylor, AP: Hungarian Law Wrests Control of Research from Scientific Academy-Protestors Disapprove of Putting Scientific Institutions under the Authority of a Government-Led Committee. The Scientist 2019.Google Scholar

Dunai, M: Hungarian Parliament Passes Bill Tightening State Grip over Scientists. Reuters-World News 2019.Google Scholar

Goldstein, A: Trump Restrictions on Fetal Tissue Research Unsettle Key Studies and Scientists. Washington Post 2020.Google Scholar

Worth, P: Threats to Children’s Health. Catalyst Winter 2020, 20:8.Google Scholar

Hawking, SW: Chronology Protection Conjecture. Physical Review D 1992, 46:603– 611, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.603.Google Scholar

Teplow, DB, et al.: Elucidating Amyloid β-Protein Folding and Assembly: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Accounts of Chemical Research 2006, 39(9):635–645, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16981680.Google Scholar

Merton, RK: On Social Structure and Science. University of Chicago Press 1996, https://books.google.com/books?id=j94XiVDwAZEC.Google Scholar

Marshall, A: Principles of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, 8th edition 2013.Google Scholar

Boorstein, S: Don’s Just Do Something, Sit There. A Mindfulness Retreat with Sylvia Boorstein. Harper-Collins, 1st edition 1996.Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E: Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften 1935, 23(48):807–812, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491891.Google Scholar

Maxwell, JC: Theory of Heat. Longmans, Green and Co. 1902.Google Scholar

Franklin, A: What Makes a “Good” Experiment? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1981, 32(4):367–379.Google Scholar

Franklin, A: What Makes a Good Experiment? University of Pittsburgh Press 2016.Google Scholar

Lipton, P: Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge, 2nd edition 2004.Google Scholar

Knight, J: From DNA to Consciousness – Crick’s Legacy. Nature 2004, 430(7000):597–597, https://doi.org/10.1038/430597a.Google Scholar

Crick, F, Koch C: Towards a Neurobiological Theory of Consciousness. Seminars in the Neurosciences 1990, 2:263–275.Google Scholar

Crick, F, Koch C: The Problem of Consciousness. Scientific American 1992, 6(2):11–17.Google Scholar

Crick, F, Koch C: A Framework for Consciousness. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6(2):119–126, https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0203-119.Google Scholar

Urbanc, B, et al.: Dynamics of Plaque Formation in Alzheimer’s Disease. Biophysical Journal 1999, 76(3):1330–1334.Google Scholar

Gibney, E: New Definitions of Scientific Units Are on the Horizon. Metrologists Are Poised to Change How Scientists Measure the Universe. Nature 2017, 550:312–313.Google Scholar

Tukey, JW: Analyzing Data: Sanctification or Detective Work? American Psychologist 1969, 24(2):83–91.Google Scholar

Johnson, DH: The Insignificance of Statistical Significance Testing. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 1999, 63(763–772):3.Google Scholar

Jones, SR, Carley, S, Harrison M: An Introduction to Power and Sample Size Estimation. Emergency Medicine 2003, 20:453–458.Google Scholar

Jørstad, TS, Langaas, M, Bones, AM: Understanding Sample Size: What Determines the Required Number of Microarrays for an Experiment? Trends in Plant Sciences 2007, 12(2):46–50.Google Scholar

Sullivan, LM, Weinberg, J, Keaney JF: Common Statistical Pitfalls in Basic Science Research. Journal of the American Heart Association 2016, 5:e004142.Google Scholar

Hilbert, D, Ackermann W: Grundzüge der theoretischen logik. Springer (Berlin) 1928.Google Scholar

Turing, AM: On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 1937, s2–42:230– 265, https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230.Google Scholar

Heesen, R: How Much Evidence Should One Collect? Philosophical Studies 2015, 172(9):2299–2313.Google Scholar

al-Haytham, I: The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I–III. On Direct Vision. The Warburg Institute 1989.Google Scholar

Whewell, W: The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon Their History. John W. Parker 1837.Google Scholar

Stegenga, J, Menon T: Robustness and Independent Evidence. Philosophy of Science 2017, 84(3):414–435, https://doi.org/10.1086/692141.Google Scholar

Vosshall, LB: Into the Mind of a Fly. Nature 2007, 450(7167):193–197, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06335.Google Scholar

Gerstein, MB, et al.: Comparative Analysis of the Transcriptome across Distant Species. Nature 2014, 512(7515):445–448, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13424.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L: Philosophical Investigations I. Basel Blackwell, 3rd edition 1958.Google Scholar

Sebald, WG: Don’t Think but Look!. Representations 2010, 112:112–139.Google Scholar

Locke, J: The Works of John Locke, in nine volumes. C. Baldwin, 12th edition 1824.Google Scholar

Couch, J: Pliny’s Natural History. In Thirty-Seven Books. A Translation on the Basis of That by Dr. Philemon Holland, Ed. 1601. With Critical and Explanatory Notes. George Barclay 1847.Google Scholar

Ptolemy, C: Ptolemy’s ALMAGEST. Duckworth 1984.Google Scholar

Crick, FH: On Protein Synthesis. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 1958, 12:138–63.Google Scholar

Crick, F: Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 1970, 227(5258):561–563, https://doi.org/10.1038/227561a0.Google Scholar

Raskatov, JA: What Is the “Relevant” Amyloid β42 Concentration? ChemBioChem 2019, 20(13):1725–1726, https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.201900097.Google Scholar

Douven, I: Abduction. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2017.Google Scholar

Hartshorne, C, Weiss P (Eds): The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 1931–1935, Volume I–VI. Harvard University Press 1965.Google Scholar

Bucchianico, MED: Modelling High Temperature Superconductivity: A Philosophical Inquiry in Theory, Experiment and Dissent. PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science 2009.Google Scholar

The, Peirce Edition Project (Ed): The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings (1893–1913). Indiana University Press 1998.Google Scholar

Peirce, CS: Illustrations of the Logic of Science. The Probability of Induction. Popular Science Monthly 1878, 12:705–718.Google Scholar

Anderson, DR: The Evolution of Peirce’s Concept of Abduction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1986, 22(2):145–164.Google Scholar

Plutynski, A: Four Problems of Abduction: A Brief History. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2011, 1(2):227– 248.Google Scholar

Frankfurt, HG: Peirce’s Account of Inquiry. Journal of Philosophy 1958, 55(14):588–592.Google Scholar

Campos, DG: On the Distinction between Peirce’s Abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 2011, 180(3):419–442, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3.Google Scholar

Minnameier, G: Peirce-Suit of Truth: Why Inference to the Best Explanation and Abduction Ought Not to Be Confused. Erkenntnis 2004, 60:75–105, www.jstor.org/stable/20013245.Google Scholar

Peirce, CS: The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press 1958.Google Scholar

Quine, WV: Word and Object. Studies in Communication, Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1960.Google Scholar

Van, Fraassen BC: Laws and Symmetry. Oxford University Press 1989.Google Scholar

Harman, GH: The Inference to the Best Explanation. The Philosophical Review 1965, 74:88–95.Google Scholar

Mcauliffe, WHB: How did Abduction Get Confused with Inference to the Best Explanation? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2015, 51(3):300–319, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.51.3.300.Google Scholar

Burks, AW: Peirce’s Theory of Abduction. Philosophy of Science 1946, 13(4):301– 306, www.jstor.org/stable/185210.Google Scholar

Schurz, G: Patterns of Abduction. Synthese 2008, 164:201–234.Google Scholar

Mohammadian, M: Abduction − The Context of Discovery + Underdetermination = Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 2019, 198:4205–4228Google Scholar

Hintikka, J: What Is Abduction? The Fundamental Problem of Contemporary Epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1998, 34(3):503, www.jstor.org/stable/40320712.Google Scholar

Campos, DG: On the Distinction between Peirce’s Abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 2011, 180(3):419–442, www.jstor.org/stable/41477565.Google Scholar

Paavola, S: Hansonian and Harmanian Abduction as Models of Discovery. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2006, 20:93–108, https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590600641065.Google Scholar

Mcauliffe, WHB: How did Abduction Get Confused with Inference to the Best Explanation? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2015, 51(3):300–319, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.51.3.300.Google Scholar

McKaughan, DJ: From Ugly Duckling to Swan: C. S. Peirce, Abduction, and the Pursuit of Scientific Theories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2008, 44(3):446–468, www.jstor.org/stable/40321321.Google Scholar

Paavola, S: Abduction through Grammar, Critic, and Methodeutic. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2004, 40(2):245–270, www.jstor.org/stable/40320991.Google Scholar

Hempel, CG: Aspects of Scientific Explanation: And Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Free Press 1965.Google Scholar

Barnes, E: Inference to the Loveliest Explanation. Synthese 1995, 103(2):251–277, www.jstor.org/stable/20117399.Google Scholar

Tversky, A, Kahneman D: Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 1974, 185 4157:1124–1131.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D, Slovic, P, Tversky A (Eds): Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press 1982.Google Scholar

Okasha, S: Van Fraassen’s Critique of Inference to the Best Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2000, 31:691–710.Google Scholar

Harman, GH: Knowledge, Reasons, and Causes. Journal of Philosophy 1970, 67(21):841–855.Google Scholar

Niiniluoto, I: Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge. Synthese 2018, 197(1).Google Scholar

Mathematica, S: J. L. Heiberg 1898.Google Scholar

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

Duhem, P: La théorie physique son objet et sa structure. Chevalier et Riviere, 2nd edition 1914.Google Scholar

Ariew, R: The Duhem Thesis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1984, 35(4):313–325, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/35.4.313.Google Scholar

Duhem, PMM: The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press 1954.Google Scholar

Stanford, K: Underdetermination of Scientific Theory. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2017.Google Scholar

Quine, WV: From a Logical Point of View. Harvard University Press 1953.Google Scholar

Quine, WV: On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World. Erkenntnis 1975, 9(3):313–328, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00178004.Google Scholar

Bandyopadhyay, PS, Bennett, JG, Higgs MD: How to Undermine Underdetermination? Foundations of Science 2015, 20(2).Google Scholar

Kyle, Stanford P: Exceeding Our Grasp. Oxford University Press 2010.Google Scholar

Laudan, L, Leplin J: Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy 1991, 88(9):449–472, www.jstor.org/stable/2026601.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P: The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Springer 1996.Google Scholar

Park, S: Philosophical Responses to Underdetermination in Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 2009, 40:115–124, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-009-9080-6.Google Scholar

Stanford, PK: Refusing the Devil’s Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously? Philosophy of Science 2001, 68(3):S1–S12, www.jstor.org/stable/3080930.Google Scholar

Chamberlin, TC: The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. Science (Old Series) 1890, 15:92–96.Google Scholar

Elliott, LP, Brook BW: Revisiting Chamberlin: Multiple Working Hypotheses for the 21st Century. BioScience 2007, 57(7):608–614, https://doi.org/10.1641/B570708.Google Scholar

Yanco, SW, McDevitt A, Trueman, CN, Hartley, LM, Wunder MB: A Modern Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses to Improve Inference in Ecology. Royal Society Open Science 2020, 7:200231.Google Scholar

Spade, PV, Panaccio C: Simplicity. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, spring 2019 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2019.Google Scholar

Ball, P: The Tyranny of Simple Explanations. The Atlantic 2016.Google Scholar

Derkse, W: On Simplicity and Elegance-An Essay in Intellectual History. Eburon 1992.Google Scholar

Baker, A: Simplicity. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2016 https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/simplicity/.Google Scholar

Sober, E: What Is the Problem of Simplicity? In Simplicity, Inference, and Modelling. Edited by Zellner A, Keuzenkamp, HA, McAleer M, Cambridge University Press 2002:13–32.Google Scholar

Jefferys, WH, Berger JO: Ockham’s Razor and Bayesian Analysis. American Scientist 1992, 80:64–72, www.jstor.org/stable/29774559.Google Scholar

Barnes, EC: Ockham’s Razor and the Anti-Superfluity Principle. Erkenntnis (1975–) 2000, 53(3):353–374, www.jstor.org/stable/20013020.Google Scholar

Sober, E: From a Biological Point of View: Essays in Evolutionary Philosophy. Cambridge University Press 1994, www.cambridge.org/core/books/from-a-biological-point-of-view/6C0C7E57E2F2BBBCFD2056751772E70C.Google Scholar

Herrmann, DA: PAC Learning and Occam’s Razor: Probably Approximately Incorrect. Philosophy of Science 2020, 87(4):685–703, https://doi.org/10.1086/709786.Google Scholar

Valiant, LG: A Theory of the Learnable. Communications of the ACM 1984, 27(11):1134–1142, https://doi.org/10.1145/1968.1972.Google Scholar

Blumer, A, Ehrenfeucht, A, Haussler, D, Warmuth MK: Occam’s Razor. Information Processing Letters 1987, 24(6):377–380, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020019087901141.Google Scholar

Li, M, M B Vitányi P: Inductive Reasoning and Kolmogorov Complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 1992, 44(2):343–384, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002200009290026F.Google Scholar

Kelly, K: Justification as Truth-Finding Efficiency: How Ockham’s Razor Works. Minds and Machines 2004, 14:485–505.Google Scholar

Douglas, H, Magnus P: State of the Field: Why Novel Prediction Matters. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2013, 44(4):580–589, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368113000198.Google Scholar

Box, GEP: Science and Statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1976, 71(356):791–799, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949.Google Scholar

Akaike, H: Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory. Edited by Petrov BN, Csaki, F, Kiado, Akademiai, 1973.Google Scholar

Akaike, H: A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1974, AC-19(6):716–723.Google Scholar

Watanabe, S: A Widely Applicable Bayesian Information Criterion. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2013, 14:867–897.Google Scholar

Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP, van der Linde A: The Deviance Information Criterion: 12 Years On. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 2014, 76(3):485–493, https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rssb.12062.Google Scholar

Blankenship, EE, Perkins, MW, Johnson RJ: The Information-Theoretic Approach to Model Selection: Description and Case Study. Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture 2002.Google Scholar

Burnham, KP, Anderson DR: Basic Use of the Information-Theoretic Approach. In Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Edited by Burnham KP, Anderson, DR, Springer, 2002:98–148, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22456-5_3.Google Scholar

Royle, JA, Dorazio RM: OCCUPANCY AND ABUNDANCE. In Hierarchical Modeling and Inference in Ecology. Edited by Royle JA, Dorazio, RM, Academic Press 2009:127–157, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123740977000065.Google Scholar

Kullback, S, Leibler RA: On Information and Sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1951, 22:79–86, www.jstor.org/stable/2236703.Google Scholar

Burnham, KP, Anderson DR: Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Springer 2004, https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644.Google Scholar

Royall, R: The Likelihood Paradigm for Statistical Evidence. In The Nature of Scientific Evidence: Statistical, Philosophical, and Empirical Considerations. Edited by Taper M, Lele, S, University of Chicago Press 2010:119–152, https://books.google.com/books?id=ivwGWFM-VssC.Google Scholar

Dijkstra, EW: The Next Fifty Years 1996, www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd12xx/EWD1243.PDF. [Circulated privately].Google Scholar

Kitcher, P: Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World. In Scientific Explanation. Edited by Kitcher P, Salmon, W, University of Minnesota Press 1989:410–505 (excerpts).Google Scholar

Kant, I: Critique of Judgement. Hackett 1987.Google Scholar

Hempel, CG: Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall 1966.Google Scholar

Friedman, M: Explanation and Scientific Understanding. The Journal of Philosophy 1974, 71:5–19, www.jstor.org/stable/2024924.Google Scholar

Salmon, WC: Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press 1984.Google Scholar

Railton, P: Probability, Explanation, and Information. Synthese 1981, 48(2):233– 256, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063889.Google Scholar

Hawking, S, Mlodinow L: The (Elusive) Theory of Everything. Scientific American 2010, 303(4):68–71, www.jstor.org/stable/26002214.Google Scholar

de, Regt HW: Wesley Salmon’s Complementarity Thesis: Causalism and Unificationism Reconciled? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2006, 20(2):129–147, https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590600814308.Google Scholar

Marder, E: Understanding Brains: Details, Intuition, and Big Data. PLOS Biology 2015, 13(5):e1002147, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002147.Google Scholar

Green, S (Ed): Philosophy of Systems Biology. Perspectives from Scientists and Philosophers, Volume 20 of History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences. Springer International Publishing 2017.Google Scholar

Braillard, PA (Ed): Explanation in Biology. An Enquiry into the Diversity of Explanatory Patterns in the Life Sciences. Springer 2015.Google Scholar

Strevens, M: Depth. An Account of Scientific Explanation. Harvard University Press 2008.Google Scholar

Bechtel, W, Richardson RC: Discovering Complexity. Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. MIT Press, 2nd edition 2010.Google Scholar

Brigandt, I: Systems Biology and the Integration of Mechanistic Explanation and Mathematical Explanation. In The Routledge Handbook of Mechanisms and Mechanical Philosophy. Edited by Brigandt I, Green, S, O’Malley MA, Routledge 2017 www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315731544.ch27.Google Scholar

Chemero, A, Silberstein M: After the Philosophy of Mind: Replacing Scholasticism with Science. Philosophy of Science 2008, 75:1–27, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/587820.Google Scholar

Stepp, N, Chemero, A, Turvey MT: Philosophy for the Rest of Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science 2011, 3(2):425–437.Google Scholar

Lamb, M, Chemero A: Structure and Application of Dynamical Models in Cognitive Science. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2014, 36(36):809–814.Google Scholar

Kaplan, DM, Craver CF: The Explanatory Force of Dynamical and Mathematical Models in Neuroscience: A Mechanistic Perspective. Philosophy of Science 2011, 78(4):601–627, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661755.Google Scholar

Weinberg, RA: The Molecules of Life. Scientific American 1985, 253(4):48–57, www.jstor.org/stable/24967808.Google Scholar

Woodward, JF: Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford University Press 2004, www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy043/2002192596.html.Google Scholar

Barberis, M, Klipp, E, Vanoni, M, Alberghina L: Cell Size at S Phase Initiation: An Emergent Property of the G1/S Network. PLOS Computational Biology 2007, 3(4):e64, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030064.Google Scholar

Levy, A: What Was Hodgkin and Huxley’s Achievement? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2014, 65(3):469–492.Google Scholar

Glennan, SS: Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation. Erkenntnis 1996, 44:49–71, www.jstor.org/stable/20012673.Google Scholar

Machamer, P, Darden, L, Craver CF: Thinking about Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 2000, 67:1–25, www.jstor.org/stable/188611.Google Scholar

Woodward, J: What Is a Mechanism? A Counterfactual Account. Philosophy of Science 2002, 69(S3).Google Scholar

Bunge, M: A General Black Box Theory. Philosophy of Science 1963, 30(4):346– 358, www.jstor.org/stable/186066.Google Scholar

Craver, CF: Explaining the Brain. Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Clarendon Press 2007.Google Scholar

Craver, CF, Kaplan DM: Are More Details Better? On the Norms of Completeness for Mechanistic Explanations. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2020, 71:287–319, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy015.Google Scholar

Batterman, RW, Rice CC: Minimal Model Explanations. Philosophy of Science 2014, 81(3):349–376, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676677.Google Scholar

Batterman, RW: The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence. Oxford University Press 2001.Google Scholar

Seger, J, Stubblefield JW: Optimization and Adaptation. In Adaptation, 1st edition. Edited by Rose MR, Lauder, GV, Academic Press 1996:93–123.Google Scholar

Weber, E, Bouwel JV: Causation, Unification, and the Adequacy of Explanations of Facts. THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 2009, 24(3):301–320, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10353/.Google Scholar

Woodward, J: Explanation, Invariance, and Intervention. Philosophy of Science 1997, 64:S26–S41, www.jstor.org/stable/188387.Google Scholar

Salmon, WC: Causality and Explanation. Oxford University Press 1998.Google Scholar

Salmon, WC: Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. University of Pittsburgh Press 1990, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkdm7.Google Scholar

Emmert-Streib, F, De Matos Simoes, R, Mullan, P, Haibe-Kains, B, Dehmer, M: The Gene Regulatory Network for Breast Cancer: Integrated Regulatory Landscape of Cancer Hallmarks. Frontiers in Genetics 2014, 5(15):1–12, www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2014.00015.Google Scholar

Ongaro, M: Explanatory Relevance. A Central Issue in the Theory of Explanation. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics 2017.Google Scholar

Salmon, WC: The Foundations of Scientific Inference. University of Pittsburgh Press 1967.Google Scholar

Lombrozo, T: Explanation and Abductive Inference. In The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, Oxford University Press 2012.Google Scholar

Salmon, MH, et al.: Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Hackett Publishing Company 1992.Google Scholar

Kyburg, HE: Discussion: Salmon’s Paper. Philosophy of Science 1965, 32(2):147– 151, https://doi.org/10.1086/288034.Google Scholar

Levin, ME, Levin MR: Flagpoles, Shadows and Deductive Explanation. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 1977, 32(3):293–299, www.jstor.org/stable/4319174.Google Scholar

Woodward, J: Scientific Explanation. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter edition). Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/scientific-explanation/.Google Scholar

Halpern, JY, Pearl J: Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach. Part II: Explanations. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2005, 56(4):889– 911, www.jstor.org/stable/3541871.Google Scholar

Ruben, DH: Explaining Explanation. Paradigm, 2nd edition 2012.Google Scholar

Lewis, D: Causation. The Journal of Philosophy 1973, 70(17):556–567, www.jstor.org/stable/2025310.Google Scholar

Lewis, D: Causation as Influence. In Causation and Counterfactuals. Edited by Collins JD, Paul, LA, Hall, N, MIT Press 2004:75–106.Google Scholar

Woodward, J, Hitchcock C: Explanatory Generalizations, Part I: A Counterfactual Account. Noûs 2003, 37:1–24, www.jstor.org/stable/3506202.Google Scholar

Kuorikoski, J: There Are No Mathematical Explanations. Philosophy of Science 2021, 88(2):189–212, www.cambridge.org/core/article/there-are-no-mathematical-explanations/4FF90FDACEF2C6EA56B4859351E26E63.Google Scholar

Nerlich, G: What Can Geometry Explain? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1979, 30:69–83.Google Scholar

Haack, S: Coherence, Consistency, Cogency, Congruity, Cohesiveness, &c.: Remain Calm! Don’t Go Overboard! New Literary History 2004, 35(2):167–183, www.jstor.org/stable/20057831.Google Scholar

Thagard, P: Coherence in Thought and Action. The MIT Press 2000.Google Scholar

Thagard, P: Explanatory Coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1989, 12(3): 435–467, www.cambridge.org/core/article/explanatory-coherence/E05CB61CD64C26138E794BC601CC9D7A.Google Scholar

Haack, S: Double-Aspect Foundherentism: A New Theory of Empirical Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1993, 53:113–128.Google Scholar

Colombo, M, Postma, M, Sprenger J: Explanatory Value and Probabilistic Reasoning: An Empirical Study. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 2016.Google Scholar

Salmon, WC: The Value of Scientific Understanding. Philosophia 1993, 51:9–19.Google Scholar

Strevens, M: The Causal and Unification Approaches to Explanation Unified. Noûs 2004, 38:154–176.Google Scholar

Salmon, WC: Statistical Explanation. In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories: Essay in Contemporary Science and Philosophy. Edited by Colodny RG, University of Pittsburgh Press 1970:173–232, www.cambridge.org/core/article/nature-and-function-of-scientific-theories-edited-by-robert-g-colodny-pittsb urgh-university-of-pittsburgh-press-1970-pp-xv-361-price-1295/84FA935D1E1A1 C6478486F9907177801.Google Scholar

de, Regt HW: Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford University Press 2017.Google Scholar

Millikan, RA: The Electron and the Light-Quant from the Experimental Point of View. Les Prix Nobel en 1923 1924:1–15.Google Scholar

Lewens, T: The Meaning of Science: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Hachette UK 2016.Google Scholar

Will, CM: The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Reviews in Relativity 2014, 17:4.Google Scholar

Aaltonen, T, et al.: High-Precision Measurement of the W Boson Mass with the CDF II Detector. Science 2022, 376(6589):170–176, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk1781.Google Scholar

OPERA Collaboration and Adam, T et al.: Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the OPERA Detector in the CNGS Beam. arXiv 2011, arXiv:1109.4897v1 [hep-ex].Google Scholar

Reich, ES: Timing Glitches Dog Neutrino Claim. Nature 2012, 483:17.Google Scholar

Brumfiel, G: Neutrinos Not Faster than Light. Nature 2012, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.10249.Google Scholar

Antonello, M, et al.: Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the ICARUS Detector at the CNGS Beam. Physics Letters B 2012, 713:17–22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.05.033.Google Scholar

Bertolucci, S: Neutrino Speed: A Report on the Speed Measurements of the BOREXINO, ICARUS and LVD Experiments with the CNGS Beam. Nuclear Physics B – Proceedings Supplements 2013, 235–236:289–295, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092056321300145X. [The XXV International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics].Google Scholar

OPERA, Collaboration and Adam, T et al: Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the OPERA Detector in the CNGS Beam. Journal of High Energy Physics 2012, 2012(10), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)093.Google Scholar

Popper, KR: Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge 1962.Google Scholar

Collins, R: Against the Epistemic Value of Prediction over Accommodation. Noûs 1994, 28(2):210–224, www.jstor.org/stable/2216049.Google Scholar

Horwich, P: Probability and Evidence. Cambridge University Press 1982, www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy1106/81018144-d.html.Google Scholar

Barnes, EC: Prediction versus Accommodation. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/prediction-accommodation/.Google Scholar

Maher, P: Howson and Franklin on Prediction. Philosophy of Science 1993, 60(2):329–340, https://doi.org/10.1086/289736.Google Scholar

Maher, P: Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988, 1988:273–285, https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1988.1.192994.Google Scholar

Howson, C, Franklin A: Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism. Philosophy of Science 1991, 58(4):574–585, www.jstor.org/stable/188481.Google Scholar

Harker, D: On the Predilections for Predictions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2008, 59(3):429–453, www.jstor.org/stable/40072294.Google Scholar

Rubin, M: The Costs of HARKing. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz050.Google Scholar

Achinstein, P: Explanation v. Prediction: Which Carries More Weight? In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Philosophy of Science Association 1994:156–164.Google Scholar

Keynes, JM: A Treatise on Probability. Dover Publications 1921.Google Scholar

Simon, HA: Prediction and Hindsight as Confirmatory Evidence. Philosophy of Science 1955, 22(3):227–230, https://doi.org/10.1086/287427.Google Scholar

Worrall, J: Prediction and Accommodation Revisited. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2014, 45:54–61.Google Scholar

Wang, MQ, Yan, AF, Katz RV: Researcher Requests for Inappropriate Analysis and Reporting: A U.S. Survey of Consulting Biostatisticians. Annals of Internal Medicine 2018, 169(8):554–558.Google Scholar

Kerr, NL: HARKing: Hypothesizing after the Results Are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1998, 2(3):196–217, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4. [PMID: 15647155].Google Scholar

Stanger-Hall, K: Accommodation or Prediction? Science 2005, 308(5727):1409– 1412, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1409.3.Google Scholar

Strevens, M: Keep Science Irrational. Aeon Magazine 2020.Google Scholar

Ivanova, M: Poincaré’s Aesthetics of Science. Synthese 2017, 194(7):2581.Google Scholar

Zeki, S, Romaya, J, Benincasa, D, Atiyah M: The Experience of Mathematical Beauty and Its Neural Correlates. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2014, 8, www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00068.Google Scholar

Brown, S, Gao X: The Neuroscience of Beauty. Scientific American 2011, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/.Google Scholar

Murphy, N: Another Look at Novel Facts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 1989, 20(3):385–388, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0039368189900149.Google Scholar

Lyttleton, RA: The Nature of Knowledge. In The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the Unknown, Pergamon Press 1977:9–17.Google Scholar

Box, JF: R. A. Fisher, the Life of a Scientist. New York: Wiley 1978.Google Scholar

Box, GE: Non-Normality and Tests on Variances. Biometrika 1953, 40:318–335.Google Scholar

Box, G: Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. In Robustness in Statistics. Edited by Launer RL, Wilkinson, GN, Academic Press 1979:201–236, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124381506500182.Google Scholar

John, of Salisbury: The Metalogicon 1159.Google Scholar

Soldner, J: Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrahls von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung, durch die Attraktion eines Weltkörpers, an welchem er nahe vorbei geht. Berliner Astronomisches Jahrbuch 1921.Google Scholar

Jaki, SL: Johann Georg von Soldner and the Gravitational Bending of Light, with an English Translation of His Essay on It Published in 1801. Foundations of Physics 1978, 8(11):927–950, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00715064.Google Scholar

Costa, JT: Wallace, Darwin, and the Origin of Species. Harvard University Press 2014.Google Scholar

Partridge, D: Further Details Concerning the Darwin-Wallace Presentation to the Linnean Society in 1858, Including Its Submission on 1 July, Not 30 June. Journal of Natural History 2016, 50(15–16):1035–1044, https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2015.1091102.Google Scholar

Darwin, CR, Wallace AR: On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 1858, 3(9):45–62.Google Scholar

Hamilton, K: Darwin’s Error: Implications for Insect Taxonomy. In Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting 2011.Google Scholar

van, Holstein L, Foley RA: Terrestrial Habitats Decouple the Relationship between Species and Subspecies Diversification in Mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2020, 287(1923).Google Scholar

Gee, H: Science in Culture-A Year in Pangaea. Nature 1999, 401(6753):530–530, https://doi.org/10.1038/44018.Google Scholar

Cleland, C: Historical Science, Experimental Science, and the Scientific Method. Geology 2001, 29:987–990.Google Scholar

Everett, H: “Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 1957, 29(3):454–462, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454.Google Scholar

Guth, AH: Inflation and Eternal Inflation. Physics Reports 2000, 333–334:555–574, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157300000375.Google Scholar

Dubray, C: The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia Press 1913.Google Scholar

Wild, J: What Is Realism? The Journal of Philosophy 1947, 44(6):148–158, www.jstor.org/stable/2020042.Google Scholar

Alai, M: Novel Predictions and the No Miracle Argument. Erkenntnis 2014, 79(2):297–326, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9495-7.Google Scholar

Psillos, S: The Present State of the Scientific Realism Debate. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2000, 51:705–728, www.jstor.org/stable/3541614.Google Scholar

Nanay, B: Singularist Semirealism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2013, 64(2):371–394, www.jstor.org/stable/24563057.Google Scholar

Peters, D: What Elements of Successful Scientific Theories Are the Correct Targets for “Selective” Scientific Realism? Philosophy of Science 2014, 81(3):377–397, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676537.Google Scholar

Dellsén, F: Realism and the Absence of Rivals. Synthese 2017, 194(7):2427–2446, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1059-3.Google Scholar

Morganti, M: Is There a Compelling Argument for Ontic Structural Realism? Philosophy of Science 2011, 78(5):1165–1176, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662258.Google Scholar

Chang, H: Realism for Realistic People. Spontaneous Generations 2018, 9:31–34.Google Scholar

Fine, A: The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory. University of Chicago Press 1986.Google Scholar

Hacking, I: Experimentation and Scientific Realism. In Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge University Press 1983:262–275, www.cambridge.org/core/books/representing-and-intervening/experimentation-and-scientific-realism/3831C794E98605154A8B CC196F97B7B7.Google Scholar

Thomson, JJ: XL. Cathode Rays. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1897, 44(269):293–316, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449708621070.Google Scholar

Stoney, GJ: LII. On the Physical Units of Nature. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1881, 11(69):381–390, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786448108627031.Google Scholar

Stoney, GJ: Of the “Electron,” or Atom of Electricity. Philosophical Magazine 1894, 38:418–420.Google Scholar

FitzGerald, GF: Dissociation of Atoms. The Electrician 1897, 39:103–104.Google Scholar

Romer, A: The Experimental History of Atomic Charges, 1895–1903. Isis 1942, 34(2):150–161, www.jstor.org/stable/226218.Google Scholar

Stoney, GJ: LIII. On Texture in Media, and on the Non-Existence of Density in the Elemental Æther. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1890, 29(181):467–478, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449008619970.Google Scholar

Slaney, K: On Empirical Realism and the Defining of Theoretical Terms. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 2001, 21:132–152.Google Scholar

Norris, SP: The Inconsistencies at the Foundation of Construct Validation Theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation 1983:53–74, https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1344.Google Scholar

Musgrave, A: The “No Miracle” Argument for Scientific Realism. The Rutherford Journal 2006–2007, 2.Google Scholar

Hacking, I: Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press 1983, https://books.google.com/books?id=4hIQ5fGf-_oC.Google Scholar

Cartwright, N: How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press 1983.Google Scholar

Giere, RN: Science without Laws. University of Chicago Press 1999.Google Scholar

Hacking, I: Extragalactic Reality: The Case of Gravitational Lensing. Philosophy of Science 1989, 56(4):555–581, www.jstor.org/stable/187781.Google Scholar

McMullin, E: Explanatory Success and the Truth of Theory. In Scientific Inquiry in Philosophical Perspective. Edited by Rescher N, University Press of America 1987.Google Scholar

Chakravartty, A, Van Fraassen BC: What Is Scientific Realism? Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 2018, 9:12–25.Google Scholar

Shaw, JCO: Why the Realism Debate Matters for Science Policy: The Case of the Human Brain Project. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 2018, 9:82–98.Google Scholar

Poincaré, H: Science and Hypothesis. The Walter Scott Publishing Co., Ltd 1905.Google Scholar

Worrall, J: Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds? Dialectica 1989, 43(1/2):99–124, www.jstor.org/stable/42970613.Google Scholar

de, Senarmont H, Émile Verdet, Fresnel L (Eds): Oeuvres complétes d’Augustin Fresnel. Imprimer Impériale 1866.Google Scholar

Brewster, D: IX On the Laws Which Regulate the Polarisation of Light by Reflexion from Transparent Bodies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1815, 105:125–159.Google Scholar

Maxwell, JC: A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Force. The Royal Society 1865.Google Scholar

Hågenvik, HO, Skaar J: Magnetic Permeability in Fresnel’s Equation. Journal of the Optical Society of America B 2019, 36(5):1386–1395, http://josab.osa.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josab-36-5-1386.Google Scholar

Wright, AS: Fresnel’s Laws, ceteris paribus. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2017, 64:38–52, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368116301182.Google Scholar

Chakravartty, A: Semirealism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 1998, 29(3):391–408.Google Scholar

Ralón, L: Interview with Anjan Chakravartty. Figure/Ground 2020, http://figureground.org/interview-with-anjan-chakravartty/.Google Scholar

Ghins, M: Defending Scientific Realism without Relying on Inference to the Best Explanation. Axiomathes 2017, 27(6):635–651, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516017-9356-0.Google Scholar

Ghins, M: Can Common Sense Realism Be Extended to Theoretical Physics? Logic Journal of the IGPL 2005, 13:95–111, https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzi006.Google Scholar

Pratchett, T, Briggs S: Lords and Ladies. Bloomsbury Publishing 2021, https://books.google.com/books?id=AeslEAAAQBAJ.Google Scholar