Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:20:49.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Models and Analogies: A Reply to Girill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Peter Achinstein*
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Achinstein, P.Models, Analogies, and Theories.” Philosophy of Science 31 (1964): 328350.10.1086/288018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Achinstein, P.Theoretical Models.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16 (1965): 102120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Achinstein, P. Concepts of Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.Google Scholar
[4] Achinstein, P.Approaches to the Philosophy of Science.” The Legacy of Logical Positivism. Edited by Achinstein, P. and Barker, S. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969.Google Scholar
[5] Braithwaite, R. B.Models in the Empirical Sciences.” Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Edited by Nagel, E., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[6] Girili, T. R.Formal Models and Achinstein's ‘Analogies’.” Philosophy of Science 38 (1971): 96104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Hempel, C. G. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[8] Nagel, E. Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Suppes, P.A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences.” Synthese 12 (1960): 287301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar