Is there more that one "Curie's principle"? How far are different formulations legitimate? What are the aspects that make it so scientifically fruitful, independently of how it is formulated? The paper is devoted to exploring these questions. We start with illustrating Curie's original 1894 article and his focus. 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 inter-state version of the principle loses sight of some of the most interesting signifcant applications of the principle. Finally, we address criticism of the principle put forward by Norton (2014) and purported counterexamples due to Roberts (2013, 2014).
Which Curie's Principle? / Castellani, Elena; Ismael, Jenann. - In: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. - ISSN 0031-8248. - STAMPA. - 83:(2016), pp. 1002-1013.
Which Curie's Principle?
CASTELLANI, ELENA;
2016
Abstract
Is there more that one "Curie's principle"? How far are different formulations legitimate? What are the aspects that make it so scientifically fruitful, independently of how it is formulated? The paper is devoted to exploring these questions. We start with illustrating Curie's original 1894 article and his focus. 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 inter-state version of the principle loses sight of some of the most interesting signifcant applications of the principle. Finally, we address criticism of the principle put forward by Norton (2014) and purported counterexamples due to Roberts (2013, 2014).I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.



