Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:40:33.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robert John Ackermann. Data, Instruments, and Theory: A Dialectical Approach to Understanding Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1985), xii + 216 pp. $25.00.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

James Woodward
James Woodward*
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 455 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association 1986

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

Galison, Peter (1985), “Bubble Chambers and the Experimental Workplate”, in Observation, Experiment and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, P. Achinstein and O. Hannaway. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 309–73.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1981), “Do We See Through A Microscope?” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62: 305–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Andrew (1984), “Against Putting the Phenomena First: The Discovery of the Weak Neutral Current”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 15: 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Andrew (1984), Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pinch, Trevor (1985), “Theory Testing in Science—The Case of the Solar Neutrinos: Do Crucial Experiments Test Theories or Theorists?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 15: 167–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar