Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCastellani, Elena
dc.contributor.authorIsmael, Jenann
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-10T21:54:05Z
dc.date.available2017-08-10T21:54:05Z
dc.date.issued2016-12
dc.identifier.citationWhich Curie’s Principle? 2016, 83 (5):1002 Philosophy of Scienceen
dc.identifier.issn0031-8248
dc.identifier.issn1539-767X
dc.identifier.doi10.1086/687933
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/625244
dc.description.abstractIs there more than one "Curie's principle"? How far are different formulations legitimate? What are the aspects that make it so scientifically fruitful? This article is devoted to exploring these questions. We begin by discussing Curie's original 1894 article. Then, we consider the way that the discussion of the principle took shape from early commentators to its modern form. We say why we think that the modern focus on the interstate version of the principle loses sight of some of the most significant applications of the principle. Finally, we address criticisms of the principle put forward by John Norton and Bryan Roberts.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherUNIV CHICAGO PRESSen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/687933en
dc.rightsCopyright © 2016 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.en
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.titleWhich Curie’s Principle?en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Dept Philosophyen
dc.identifier.journalPhilosophy of Scienceen
dc.description.note12 month embargo; Published online: Dec 2016en
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
refterms.dateFOA2017-12-31T00:00:00Z
html.description.abstractIs there more than one "Curie's principle"? How far are different formulations legitimate? What are the aspects that make it so scientifically fruitful? This article is devoted to exploring these questions. We begin by discussing Curie's original 1894 article. Then, we consider the way that the discussion of the principle took shape from early commentators to its modern form. We say why we think that the modern focus on the interstate version of the principle loses sight of some of the most significant applications of the principle. Finally, we address criticisms of the principle put forward by John Norton and Bryan Roberts.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
687933.pdf
Size:
471.7Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
FInal Published Version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record