Two Kinds of Observation: Why van Fraassen Was Right to Make a Distinction, but Made the Wrong One.

Comments on the epistemic distinction made by empiricist van Fraassen regarding the observation of objects with the naked eye. Details on the principle of diffraction; Importance of the inhomogeneity function of objects for the inverse Fourier transform of perturbed waves; Comparison between ordina...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophy of Science Vol. 67; no. 3; pp. 355 - 366
Autor principal: Vollmer, Sara
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Cambridge University Press Sep2000
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=3930704&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 3930704
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318248
        PSC
      jtl: Philosophy of Science
      issn: 00318248
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2000
      vid: 67
      iid: 3
      pid: 15979
      pub: Cambridge University Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        3930704
        10.1086/392785
      ppf: 355
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 649KB
      tig:
        atl: Two Kinds of Observation: Why van Fraassen Was Right to Make a Distinction, but Made the Wrong One.
      aug:
        au: Vollmer, Sara
      su:
        Epistemics
        Optical diffraction
      sug:
        subj:
          Epistemics
          Optical diffraction
      ab: Comments on the epistemic distinction made by empiricist van Fraassen regarding the observation of objects with the naked eye. Details on the principle of diffraction; Importance of the inhomogeneity function of objects for the inverse Fourier transform of perturbed waves; Comparison between ordinary visual and instrument-assisted observations.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Philosophy of Science is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Philosophy of Science
      holder: Cambridge University Press
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2000
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N