Publisher: Oxford University Press   (Total: 413 journals)

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

        1 2 3 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Showing 1 - 200 of 413 Journals sorted alphabetically
ACS Symposium Series     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.189, CiteScore: 0)
Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.79, CiteScore: 2)
Adaptation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.143, CiteScore: 0)
Advances in Nutrition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 61, SJR: 2.196, CiteScore: 5)
Aesthetic Surgery J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.434, CiteScore: 1)
Aesthetic Surgery J. Open Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
African Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 74, SJR: 1.869, CiteScore: 2)
Age and Ageing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 95, SJR: 1.989, CiteScore: 4)
Alcohol and Alcoholism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 1.376, CiteScore: 3)
American Entomologist     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
American Historical Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 217, SJR: 0.467, CiteScore: 1)
American J. of Agricultural Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54, SJR: 2.113, CiteScore: 3)
American J. of Clinical Nutrition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 232, SJR: 3.438, CiteScore: 6)
American J. of Epidemiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 228, SJR: 2.713, CiteScore: 3)
American J. of Health-System Pharmacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 64, SJR: 0.595, CiteScore: 1)
American J. of Hypertension     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 1.322, CiteScore: 3)
American J. of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.281, CiteScore: 1)
American J. of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.116, CiteScore: 0)
American Law and Economics Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31, SJR: 1.053, CiteScore: 1)
American Literary History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.391, CiteScore: 0)
Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 1.038, CiteScore: 1)
Animal Frontiers     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Annals of Behavioral Medicine     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 1.423, CiteScore: 3)
Annals of Botany     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 38, SJR: 1.721, CiteScore: 4)
Annals of Oncology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 62, SJR: 5.599, CiteScore: 9)
Annals of the Entomological Society of America     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.722, CiteScore: 1)
Annals of Work Exposures and Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.728, CiteScore: 2)
Antibody Therapeutics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
AoB Plants     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.28, CiteScore: 3)
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.858, CiteScore: 2)
Applied Linguistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 66, SJR: 2.987, CiteScore: 3)
Applied Mathematics Research eXpress     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.241, CiteScore: 1)
Arbitration Intl.     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 33, SJR: 0.731, CiteScore: 2)
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Arthropod Management Tests     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Astronomy & Geophysics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 0.146, CiteScore: 0)
Behavioral Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 58, SJR: 1.871, CiteScore: 3)
Bioinformatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 396, SJR: 6.14, CiteScore: 8)
Biology Methods and Protocols     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Biology of Reproduction     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11, SJR: 1.446, CiteScore: 3)
Biometrika     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 3.485, CiteScore: 2)
BioScience     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 2.754, CiteScore: 4)
Bioscience Horizons : The National Undergraduate Research J.     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.146, CiteScore: 0)
Biostatistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 1.553, CiteScore: 2)
BJA : British J. of Anaesthesia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 232, SJR: 2.115, CiteScore: 3)
BJA Education     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 69)
Brain     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 78, SJR: 5.858, CiteScore: 7)
Brain Communications     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Briefings in Bioinformatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 53, SJR: 2.505, CiteScore: 5)
Briefings in Functional Genomics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 2.15, CiteScore: 3)
British J. for the Philosophy of Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 42, SJR: 2.161, CiteScore: 2)
British J. of Aesthetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 0.508, CiteScore: 1)
British J. of Criminology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 622, SJR: 1.828, CiteScore: 3)
British J. of Social Work     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 99, SJR: 1.019, CiteScore: 2)
British Medical Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 1.355, CiteScore: 3)
British Yearbook of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35)
Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.376, CiteScore: 1)
Cambridge J. of Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 76, SJR: 0.764, CiteScore: 2)
Cambridge J. of Regions, Economy and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 2.438, CiteScore: 4)
Cambridge Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.104, CiteScore: 0)
Capital Markets Law J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.222, CiteScore: 0)
Carcinogenesis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 2.135, CiteScore: 5)
Cardiovascular Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 3.002, CiteScore: 5)
Cerebral Cortex     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56, SJR: 3.892, CiteScore: 6)
CESifo Economic Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 0.483, CiteScore: 1)
Chemical Senses     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.42, CiteScore: 3)
Children and Schools     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.246, CiteScore: 0)
Chinese J. of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.412, CiteScore: 0)
Chinese J. of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 0.329, CiteScore: 0)
Chinese J. of Intl. Politics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 1.392, CiteScore: 2)
Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.183, CiteScore: 0)
Classical Receptions J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 0.123, CiteScore: 0)
Clean Energy     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Clinical Infectious Diseases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 79, SJR: 5.051, CiteScore: 5)
Communication Theory     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 2.424, CiteScore: 3)
Communication, Culture & Critique     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 0.222, CiteScore: 1)
Community Development J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28, SJR: 0.268, CiteScore: 1)
Computer J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.319, CiteScore: 1)
Conservation Physiology     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.818, CiteScore: 3)
Contemporary Women's Writing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.121, CiteScore: 0)
Contributions to Political Economy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.906, CiteScore: 1)
Critical Values     Full-text available via subscription  
Current Developments in Nutrition     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
Current Zoology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6, SJR: 1.164, CiteScore: 2)
Database : The J. of Biological Databases and Curation     Open Access   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.791, CiteScore: 3)
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.259, CiteScore: 1)
Diplomatic History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.45, CiteScore: 1)
DNA Research     Open Access   (Followers: 6, SJR: 2.866, CiteScore: 6)
Dynamics and Statistics of the Climate System     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Early Music     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.139, CiteScore: 0)
Econometrics J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34, SJR: 2.926, CiteScore: 1)
Economic J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 124, SJR: 5.161, CiteScore: 3)
Economic Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 51, SJR: 3.584, CiteScore: 3)
ELT J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.942, CiteScore: 1)
English Historical Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 59, SJR: 0.612, CiteScore: 1)
English: J. of the English Association     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.1, CiteScore: 0)
Environmental Entomology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.818, CiteScore: 2)
Environmental Epigenetics     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Environmental History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28, SJR: 0.408, CiteScore: 1)
EP-Europace     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 2.748, CiteScore: 4)
Epidemiologic Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 4.505, CiteScore: 8)
ESHRE Monographs     Hybrid Journal  
Essays in Criticism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.113, CiteScore: 0)
European Heart J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 67, SJR: 9.315, CiteScore: 9)
European Heart J. - Cardiovascular Imaging     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 3.625, CiteScore: 3)
European Heart J. - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
European Heart J. - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes     Hybrid Journal  
European Heart J. : Case Reports     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
European Heart J. Supplements     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.223, CiteScore: 0)
European J. of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.681, CiteScore: 2)
European J. of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 240, SJR: 0.694, CiteScore: 1)
European J. of Orthodontics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 1.279, CiteScore: 2)
European J. of Public Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 1.36, CiteScore: 2)
European Review of Agricultural Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.172, CiteScore: 2)
European Review of Economic History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31, SJR: 0.702, CiteScore: 1)
European Sociological Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 2.728, CiteScore: 3)
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Family Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.018, CiteScore: 2)
Fems Microbiology Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 1.492, CiteScore: 4)
Fems Microbiology Letters     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 0.79, CiteScore: 2)
Fems Microbiology Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 38, SJR: 7.063, CiteScore: 13)
Fems Yeast Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.308, CiteScore: 3)
Food Quality and Safety     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Foreign Policy Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 1.425, CiteScore: 1)
Forest Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.89, CiteScore: 2)
Forestry: An Intl. J. of Forest Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.133, CiteScore: 3)
Forum for Modern Language Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.104, CiteScore: 0)
French History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 36, SJR: 0.118, CiteScore: 0)
French Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 0.148, CiteScore: 0)
French Studies Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.152, CiteScore: 0)
Gastroenterology Report     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Genome Biology and Evolution     Open Access   (Followers: 17, SJR: 2.578, CiteScore: 4)
Geophysical J. Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39, SJR: 1.506, CiteScore: 3)
German History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.161, CiteScore: 0)
GigaScience     Open Access   (Followers: 6, SJR: 5.022, CiteScore: 7)
Global Summitry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Glycobiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.493, CiteScore: 3)
Health and Social Work     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 68, SJR: 0.388, CiteScore: 1)
Health Education Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.854, CiteScore: 2)
Health Policy and Planning     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 1.512, CiteScore: 2)
Health Promotion Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.812, CiteScore: 2)
History Workshop J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 33, SJR: 1.278, CiteScore: 1)
Holocaust and Genocide Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 0.105, CiteScore: 0)
Human Communication Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 2.146, CiteScore: 3)
Human Molecular Genetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 3.555, CiteScore: 5)
Human Reproduction     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 76, SJR: 2.643, CiteScore: 5)
Human Reproduction Open     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Human Reproduction Update     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 5.317, CiteScore: 10)
Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 66, SJR: 0.756, CiteScore: 1)
ICES J. of Marine Science: J. du Conseil     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 59, SJR: 1.591, CiteScore: 3)
ICSID Review : Foreign Investment Law J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
ILAR J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.732, CiteScore: 4)
IMA J. of Applied Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.679, CiteScore: 1)
IMA J. of Management Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.538, CiteScore: 1)
IMA J. of Mathematical Control and Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.496, CiteScore: 1)
IMA J. of Numerical Analysis - advance access     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 1.987, CiteScore: 2)
Industrial and Corporate Change     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.792, CiteScore: 2)
Industrial Law J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 0.249, CiteScore: 1)
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 45, SJR: 2.511, CiteScore: 4)
Information and Inference     Free  
Innovation in Aging     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Insect Systematics and Diversity     Hybrid Journal  
Integrative and Comparative Biology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.319, CiteScore: 2)
Integrative Biology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5, SJR: 1.36, CiteScore: 3)
Integrative Organismal Biology     Open Access  
Interacting with Computers     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.292, CiteScore: 1)
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.762, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 72, SJR: 1.505, CiteScore: 3)
Intl. Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Intl. Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.851, CiteScore: 2)
Intl. Immunology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 2.167, CiteScore: 4)
Intl. J. for Quality in Health Care     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 40, SJR: 1.348, CiteScore: 2)
Intl. J. of Constitutional Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 57, SJR: 0.601, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Epidemiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 291, SJR: 3.969, CiteScore: 5)
Intl. J. of Law and Information Technology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.202, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Law, Policy and the Family     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 0.223, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Lexicography     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.285, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Low-Carbon Technologies     Open Access   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.403, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Neuropsychopharmacology     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.808, CiteScore: 4)
Intl. J. of Public Opinion Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 1.545, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Refugee Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 38, SJR: 0.389, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Transitional Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.724, CiteScore: 2)
Intl. Mathematics Research Notices     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 2.168, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. Political Sociology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 41, SJR: 1.465, CiteScore: 3)
Intl. Relations of the Asia-Pacific     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 0.401, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. Studies Perspectives     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.983, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. Studies Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 55, SJR: 2.581, CiteScore: 2)
Intl. Studies Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 1.201, CiteScore: 1)
ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.15, CiteScore: 0)
ITNOW     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.103, CiteScore: 0)
J. of African Economies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.533, CiteScore: 1)
J. of American History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 55, SJR: 0.297, CiteScore: 1)
J. of Analytical Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 1.065, CiteScore: 2)
J. of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 2.419, CiteScore: 4)
J. of Antitrust Enforcement     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
J. of Applied Poultry Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.585, CiteScore: 1)
J. of Biochemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 1.226, CiteScore: 2)

        1 2 3 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
Journal Prestige (SJR): 2.161
Citation Impact (citeScore): 2
Number of Followers: 42  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 0007-0882 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3537
Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [413 journals]
  • The Complementarity of Psychometrics and the Representational Theory of
           Measurement
    • Authors: Vessonen E.
      Pages: 415 - 442
      Abstract: AbstractPsychometrics and the representational theory of measurement (RTM) are widely used in social scientific measurement. They are currently pursued largely in isolation from one another. I argue that despite their separation in practice, RTM and psychometrics are complementary approaches, because they can contribute in complementary ways to the establishment of what I argue is a crucial measurement property, namely, representational interpretability. Because RTM and psychometrics are complementary in the establishment of representational interpretability, the current separation of measurement approaches is unfounded. 1Introduction2Two Approaches to Measurement 2.1Representational theory of measurement2.2Psychometrics2.3Representational interpretability3Complementarity, Conceptually 3.1Representational theory of measurement: Conditions of representational interpretability3.2Psychometrics: Evidence of representational interpretability4Complementarity in Action 4.1What is the Rasch model'4.2Rasch and conjoint measurement5Conclusion: Critics and Fruits of Complementarity
      PubDate: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy032
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2019)
       
  • The Real Problem with Perturbative Quantum Field Theory
    • Authors: Fraser J.
      Pages: 391 - 413
      Abstract: AbstractThe perturbative approach to quantum field theory (QFT) has long been viewed with suspicion by philosophers of science. This article offers a diagnosis of its conceptual problems. Drawing on Norton’s ([2012]) discussion of the notion of approximation I argue that perturbative QFT ought to be understood as producing approximations without specifying an underlying QFT model. This analysis leads to a reassessment of common worries about perturbative QFT. What ends up being the key issue with the approach on this picture is not mathematical rigour, or the threat of inconsistency, but the need for a physical explanation of its empirical success. 1Three Worries about Perturbative Quantum Field Theory2The Perturbative Formalism 2.1Expanding the S-matrix2.2Perturbative renormalization3Approximations and Models4Perturbative Quantum Field Theory Produces Approximations5The Real Problem
      PubDate: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axx042
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • The Sense of Time
    • Authors: Viera G.
      Pages: 443 - 469
      Abstract: AbstractIt’s often claimed in the philosophical and scientific literature on temporal representation that there is no such thing as a genuine sensory system for time. In this article, I argue for the opposite—many animals, including all mammals, possess a genuine sensory system for time based in the circadian system. In arguing for this conclusion, I develop a semantics and meta-semantics for explaining how the endogenous rhythms of the circadian system provide organisms with a direct information link to the temporal structure of their environment. In doing so, I highlight the role of sensory systems in an information processing architecture. 1Introduction2Sensory Systems and Experience3Against the Sense of Time 3.1The non-causality argument3.2The integration argument4Circadian Systems5The Semantics of (Internal) Clocks6An Information-Theoretic Account7Conclusion
      PubDate: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy019
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Getting Serious about Shared Features
    • Authors: Khosrowi D.
      Pages: 523 - 546
      Abstract: AbstractIn Simulation and Similarity, Michael Weisberg offers a similarity-based account of the model–world relation, which is the relation in virtue of which successful models are successful. Weisberg’s main idea is that models are similar to targets in virtue of sharing features. An important concern about Weisberg’s account is that it remains silent on what it means for models and targets to share features, and consequently on how feature-sharing contributes to models’ epistemic success. I consider three potential ways of concretizing the concept of shared features: as identical, quantitatively sufficiently close, and sufficiently similar features. I argue that each of these concretizations faces significant challenges, leaving unclear how Weisberg’s account substantially contributes to elucidating the relation in virtue of which successful models are successful. Against this background, I outline a pluralistic revision and argue that this revision may not only help Weisberg's account evade several of the problems that I raise, but also offers a novel perspective on the model–world relation more generally. 1Introduction2Weisberg’s Feature-Sharing Account3What Is a Shared Feature' 3.1Identity3.2Sufficient closeness3.3Sufficient similarity4Turning Weisberg’s Account ‘Upside Down’5Conclusion
      PubDate: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy029
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Asymmetry, Abstraction, and Autonomy: Justifying Coarse-Graining in
           Statistical Mechanics
    • Authors: Robertson K.
      Pages: 547 - 579
      Abstract: While the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversal invariant, most macroscopic processes are irreversible. Given that the fundamental laws are taken to underpin all other processes, how can the fundamental time-symmetry be reconciled with the asymmetry manifest elsewhere' In statistical mechanics (SM), progress can be made with this question. What I dub the ‘Zwanzig–Zeh–Wallace framework’ can be used to construct the irreversible equations of SM from the underlying microdynamics. Yet this framework uses coarse-graining, a procedure that has faced much criticism. I focus on two objections in the literature: claims that coarse-graining makes time-asymmetry (i) ‘illusory’ and (ii) ‘anthropocentric’. I argue that these objections arise from an unsatisfactory justification of coarse-graining prevalent in the literature, rather than from coarse-graining itself. This justification relies on the idea of measurement imprecision. By considering the role that abstraction and autonomy play, I provide an alternative justification and offer replies to the illusory and anthropocentric objections. Finally, I consider the broader consequences of this alternative justification: the connection to debates about inter-theoretic reduction and the implication that the time-asymmetry in SM is weakly emergent. 1Introduction 1.1Prospectus2The Zwanzig–Zeh–Wallace Framework3Why Does This Method Work' 3.1The special conditions account3.2When is a density forwards-compatible'4Anthropocentrism and Illusion: Two Objections 4.1The two objections in more detail4.2Against the justification by measurement imprecision5An Alternative Justification 5.1ion and autonomy5.2An illustration: the Game of Life6Reply to Illusory7Reply to Anthropocentric8The Wider Landscape: Concluding Remarks 8.1Inter-theoretic relations8.2The nature of irreversibility
      PubDate: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy020
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Mathematical Explanation beyond Explanatory Proof
    • Authors: D’Alessandro W.
      Pages: 581 - 603
      Abstract: AbstractMuch recent work on mathematical explanation has presupposed that the phenomenon involves explanatory proofs in an essential way. I argue that this view, ‘proof chauvinism’, is false. I then look in some detail at the explanation of the solvability of polynomial equations provided by Galois theory, which has often been thought to revolve around an explanatory proof. The article concludes with some general worries about the effects of chauvinism on the theory of mathematical explanation. 1Introduction2Why I Am Not a Proof Chauvinist 2.1Proof chauvinism and mathematical practice2.2Proof chauvinism and philosophy3An Example: Galois Theory and Explanatory Proof4Conclusion
      PubDate: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy009
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • The Principal Principle Does Not Imply the Principle of Indifference
    • Authors: Pettigrew R.
      Pages: 605 - 619
      Abstract: AbstractIn a recent paper in this journal, James Hawthorne, Jürgen Landes, Christian Wallmann, and Jon Williamson (henceforth HLWW) argue that the principal principle entails the principle of indifference. In this article, I argue that it does not. Lewis’s version of the principal principle notoriously depends on a notion of admissibility, which Lewis uses to restrict its application. HLWW base their argument on certain intuitions concerning when one proposition is admissible for another: Conditions 1 and 2. There are two ways of reading their argument, depending on how you understand the status of these conditions. Reading 1: The correct account of admissibility is determined independently of these two principles, and yet these two principles follow from that correct account. Reading 2: The correct account of admissibility is determined in part by these two principles, so that the principles follow from that account but only because the correct account is constrained so that it must satisfy them. HLWW show that given an account of admissibility on which Conditions 1 and 2 hold, the principal principle entails the principle of indifference. I argue that on either reading of the argument, it fails. First, I argue that there is a plausible account of admissibility on which Conditions 1 and 2 are false. That defeats Reading 1. Next, I argue that the intuitions that lead us to assent to Condition 2 also lead us to assent to other very closely related principles that are inconsistent with Condition 2. This, I claim, casts doubt on the reliability of those intuitions, and thus removes our justification for Condition 2. This defeats Reading 2 of the HLWW argument. Thus, the argument fails. 1Introduction2Introducing the Principal Principle3Introducing the Principle of Indifference4The HLWW Argument 4.1Reading 1: Admissibility justifies Conditions 1 and 24.2Reading 2: Conditions 1 and 2 constrain admissibility5Conclusion
      PubDate: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axx060
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • The Principal Principle Does Not Imply the Principle of Indifference,
           Because Conditioning on Biconditionals Is Counterintuitive
    • Authors: Titelbaum M; Hart C.
      Pages: 621 - 632
      Abstract: AbstractRoger White ([2010]) argued for a principle of indifference. Hart and Titelbaum ([2015]) showed that White’s argument relied on an intuition about conditioning on biconditionals that, while widely shared, is incorrect. Hawthorne, Landes, Wallmann, and Williamson ([2017]) argue for a principle of indifference. Remarkably, their argument relies on the same faulty intuition. We explain their intuition, explain why it’s faulty, and show how it generates their principle of indifference. 1Introduction2El Caminos and Indifference 2.1Overview2.2Fins and antennas2.3HLWW in the example2.4The restrictiveness of Condition 22.5Summary3The Specifics of HLWW s Argument 3.1Mapping their conditions to our equations3.2HLWW’s responses to objections
      PubDate: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy011
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Explanatory Abstraction and the Goldilocks Problem: Interventionism Gets
           Things Just Right
    • Authors: Blanchard T.
      Pages: 633 - 663
      Abstract: Theories of explanation need to account for a puzzling feature of our explanatory practices: the fact that we prefer explanations that are relatively abstract but only moderately so. Contra Franklin-Hall ([2016]), I argue that the interventionist account of explanation provides a natural and elegant explanation of this fact. By striking the right balance between specificity and generality, moderately abstract explanations optimally subserve what interventionists regard as the goal of explanation, namely, identifying possible interventions that would have changed the explanandum. 1Introduction2Interventionism, Proportionality, and Franklin-Hall’s Objection3Exhaustivity Reconsidered4Interventionism and the Explanatory Value of Specificity5Conclusion
      PubDate: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy030
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Why Surplus Structure Is Not Superfluous
    • Authors: Nguyen J; Teh N, Wells L.
      Pages: 665 - 695
      Abstract: AbstractThe idea that gauge theory has ‘surplus’ structure poses a puzzle: in one much discussed sense, this structure is redundant; but on the other hand, it is also widely held to play an essential role in the theory. In this article, we employ category-theoretic tools to illuminate an aspect of this puzzle. We precisify what is meant by surplus structure by means of functorial comparisons with equivalence classes of gauge fields, and then show that such structure is essential for any theory that represents a rich collection of physically relevant fields that are ‘local’ in nature. 1Introduction2Theories as Categories 2.1Relations between models2.2Relations between theories3Gauge Theory as a Category 3.1Gauge theory on contractible manifolds3.2Other candidates for representing U(1) gauge theory3.3Surplus and inter-theoretical comparisons4Gauge Theory as a Functor 4.1Richness and locality4.2Richness and locality imply surplus*5ConclusionAppendix
      PubDate: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy026
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Constitutive Relevance in Interlevel Experiments
    • Authors: Serban M; Holm S.
      Pages: 697 - 725
      Abstract: AbstractOne reason for the popularity of Craver’s mutual manipulability (MM) account of constitutive relevance is that it seems to make good sense of the experimental practices and constitutive reasoning in the life sciences. Two recent papers (Baumgartner and Gebharter [2016]; Baumgartner and Casini [2017]) propose a theoretical alternative to (MM) in light of several important conceptual objections. Their alternative approach, the no de-coupling (NDC) account, conceives of constitution as a dependence relation that once postulated provides the best explanation of the impossibility of breaking the common cause coupling of a macro-level mechanism and its micro-level components. This entails an abductive view of constitutive inference. Proponents of the NDC or abductive account recognize that their discussion leaves open a big question concerning the practical dimension of the notion of constitutive relevanssssce: Is it possible to faithfully reconstruct constitutional reasoning in science in terms of a failure to de-couple, via interlevel experiments, phenomena from their mechanistic constituents' Focusing on the field of memory and long-term potential (LTP) research, this article argues that the abductive account provides a more adequate description of interlevel experiments in neuroscience. We also suggest that the account highlights some significant practical recommendations of how to interpret the findings of interlevel experiments. 1Introduction2Mutual Manipulability and Constitutive Relevance 2.1Constitutive relevance through an interventionist lens2.2Mutual manipulability: A methodological application3Trouble for the Mutual Manipulability Account4The Abductive Account of Constitution5The Abductive Account: A Methodological Application 5.1Long-term potential (LTP) and memory experiments5.2A comparative summary6Conclusions
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy043
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Does IBE Require a ‘Model’ of Explanation'
    • Authors: Cabrera F.
      Pages: 727 - 750
      Abstract: AbstractIn this article, I consider an important challenge to the popular theory of scientific inference commonly known as ‘inference to the best explanation’ (IBE), one that has received scant attention.11 The problem is that there exists a wide array of rival models of explanation, thus leaving IBE objectionably indeterminate. First, I briefly introduce IBE. Then, I motivate the problem and offer three potential solutions, the most plausible of which is to adopt a kind of pluralism about the rival models of explanation. However, I argue that (i) how ranking explanations on this pluralistic account of IBE remains obscure and (ii) pluralism leads to contradictory results. In light of these objections, I attempt to dissolve the problem by showing why IBE does not require a ‘model’ of explanation and by giving an account of what explanation consists in within the context of IBE. 1IBE and the Plentitude Problem2Three Potential Solutions 2.1Solution 1: Primitivism2.2Solution 2: Accomodationism2.3Solution 3: Pluralism3Two Problems for Pluralism 3.1Difficulties with ranking explanations3.2The inevitability of conflicting verdicts4Dissolving the Plentitude Problem 4.1The explanatory virtues screen-off the model of explanation4.2The virtue-centric conception of explanation5Concluding Remarks
      PubDate: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy010
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Generalism and the Metaphysics of Ontic Structural Realism
    • Authors: Glick D.
      Pages: 751 - 772
      Abstract: AbstractOntic structural realism (OSR) claims that all there is to the world is structure. But how can this slogan be turned into a worked-out metaphysics' Here I consider one potential answer: a metaphysical framework known as ‘generalism’ (Dasgupta [2009], [2016]). According to the generalist, the most fundamental description of the world is not given in terms of individuals bearing properties, but rather, general facts about which states of affairs obtain. However, I contend that despite several apparent similarities between the positions, generalism is unable to capture the two main motivations for OSR. I suggest instead that OSR should be construed as a meta-metaphysical position. 1Introduction2Motivations 2.1Theory change2.2Permutation invariance3Metaphysics4Generalism 4.1Quantifier generalism4.2Algebraic generalism5Why Generalism Is Not Ontic Structural Realism6Ontic Structural Realism as Meta-metaphysics7Conclusion
      PubDate: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy008
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • ‘Models of’ and ‘Models for’: On the Relation between Mechanistic
           Models and Experimental Strategies in Molecular Biology
    • Authors: Ratti E.
      Pages: 773 - 797
      Abstract: AbstractMolecular biologists exploit information conveyed by mechanistic models for experimental purposes. In this article, I make sense of this aspect of biological practice by developing Keller’s idea of the distinction between ‘models of’ and ‘models for’. ‘Models of (phenomena)’ should be understood as models representing phenomena and are valuable if they explain phenomena. ‘Models for (manipulating phenomena)’ are new types of material manipulations and are important not because of their explanatory force, but because of the interventionist strategies they afford. This is a distinction between aspects of the same model. In molecular biology, models may be treated either as ‘models of’ or as ‘models for’. By analysing the discovery and characterization of restriction–modification systems and their exploitation for DNA cloning and mapping, I identify the differences between treating a model as a ‘model of’ or as a ‘model for’. These lie in the cognitive disposition of the modeller towards the model: a modeller will look at a model as a ‘model of’ if interested in its explanatory force, or as a ‘model for’ if interested in the material manipulations it can possibly afford. 1Introduction2‘Models of’ and ‘Models for’ in Molecular Biology 2.1‘Models of’ in molecular biology2.2‘Models for’: The case of CRISPR–Cas92.3Importance of ‘models for’2.4‘Models for’ and philosophy of experimentation in biology3‘Models for’ and the Discovery of Restriction–Modification Systems 3.1A tale of three Nobel Laureates3.2Restriction–modification system model as a ‘model of’ and a ‘model for’4Epistemic Disposition and Disposition towards Affordances 4.1Two cognitive dispositions towards models4.2Intentions in philosophy of science and studies of scientific cognition5Virtues of ‘Models for’ 5.1‘Models for’, target systems and portability5.2How-possibly models and schemas6Conclusion
      PubDate: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy018
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2018)
       
  • Signalling under Uncertainty: Interpretative Alignment without a Common
           Prior
    • Authors: Brochhagen T.
      Pages: 471 - 496
      Abstract: AbstractCommunication involves a great deal of uncertainty. Prima facie, it is therefore surprising that biological communication systems—from cellular to human—exhibit a high degree of ambiguity and often leave its resolution to contextual cues. This puzzle deepens once we consider that contextual information may diverge between individuals. In the following we lay out a model of ambiguous communication in iterated interactions between subjectively rational agents lacking a common contextual prior. We argue ambiguity’s justification to lie in endowing interlocutors with means to flexibly adapt language use to each other and the context of their interaction to serve their communicative preferences. Linguistic alignment is shown to play an important role in this process; it foments convergence of contextual expectations and thereby leads to agreeing use and interpretation of ambiguous messages. We conclude that ambiguity is ecologically rational when (i) interlocutors’ (beliefs about) contextual expectations are generally in line or (ii) they interact multiple times in an informative context, enabling for the alignment of their expectations. In light of these results meaning multiplicity can be understood as an opportunistic outcome enabled and shaped by linguistic adaptation and contextual information. 1Meaning Multiplicity in Communication2Ambiguous Signalling through Pragmatic Inference 2.1Preliminaries2.2Signalling behaviour2.3Communicative success2.4Iterated interactions3Predictions for Single and Iterated Interactions 3.1Simulations3.2Exploration and past experience3.3Preemptive adaptation4Discussion5ConclusionAppendix
      PubDate: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axx058
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2017)
       
  • Structuralism in the Idiom of Determination
    • Authors: McKenzie K.
      Pages: 497 - 522
      Abstract: AbstractOntic structural realism (OSR) is a thesis of fundamentality metaphysics: the thesis that structure, not objects, has fundamental status. Claimed as the metaphysic most befitting of modern physics, OSR first emerged as an entreaty to eliminate objects from the metaphysics of fundamental physics. Such elimination was urged by Steven French and James Ladyman on the grounds that only it could resolve the ‘underdetermination of metaphysics by physics’ that they claimed reduced any putative objectual commitment to a merely ‘ersatz’ form of realism. Few, however, have joined French and Ladyman either in acknowledging that such underdetermination exists or in attributing to it such drastic consequences. However, an alternative view that physics does sanction objects, albeit merely as ontologically secondary entities, represents a different and seemingly less extreme route to the same conclusion regarding the fundamentality of structure. But since what it means to be ‘ontologically prior’ is itself a vexed philosophical question, a stance must be taken as to how we are to understand priority before its prospects may be evaluated. In an earlier paper, I outlined how Fine’s notion of ontological dependence might be utilized to defend the priority-based approach to structuralism. Since then, however, I have become convinced that that ontological dependence is not a relation of priority after all. As a result, the arguments outlined in that paper stand in need of reassessment. In this work, I consider the prospects for priority-based structuralism when expressed in the idiom of determination. My conclusion will be that it has yet to be vindicated by our best physical theories, owing to the failure of symmetry structures to determine the world’s inventory of fundamental kinds. Nevertheless, the same symmetry considerations point towards there being renewed prospects for eliminativism—an eliminativism, moreover, of more naturalistic appeal than that hitherto associated with OSR. 1Introduction2Structuralist Strategies3Defining Ontological Priority: Dependence or Determination'4Structuralism in the Idiom of Determination 4.1Determining plurality4.2Determining kind properties5A Reinvigorated Eliminativism
      PubDate: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axx061
      Issue No: Vol. 71, No. 2 (2017)
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 35.175.133.127
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-