Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNickles, Thomas
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-30T19:06:51Z
dc.date.available2020-01-30T19:06:51Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationTheoria 34(3) : 357-372 (2019)
dc.identifier.issn2171-679X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/39733
dc.description.abstractThere is a rough, long-term tradeoff between rate of innovation and degree of strong realism in scientific practice, a point reflected in historically changing conceptions of method as they retreat from epistemological foundationism to a highly fallibilistic, modeling perspective. The successively more liberal, innovation-stimulating methods open up to investigation deep theoretical domains at the cost, in many cases, of moving away from strong realism as a likely outcome of research. The crowbar model of method highlights this tension, expressed as the crowbar compromise and the crowbar fallacy. The tools-to-theories heuristic, described and evaluated by Gigerenzer and colleagues, can be regarded as an attempt by some scientific realists to overcome this compromise. Instead, it is an instance of it. Nonetheless, in successful applications the crowbar model implies a modest, instrumental (nonrepresentational) realism.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherServicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatearen Argitalpen Zerbitzua
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.titleThe crowbar model of method and its implications
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.rights.holder© 2019 UPV/EHU Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional
dc.identifier.doi10.1387/theoria.19070


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2019 UPV/EHU Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2019 UPV/EHU Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional