Mechanism (philosophy) (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Mechanism (philosophy)" in English language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank English rank

10books.google.com

3^rd place

2stanford.edu

179^th place

183^rd place

1wikisource.org

27^th place

51^st place

1archive.org

6^th place

1cambridge.org

305^th place

264^th place

1doi.org

2^nd place

1archive.today

14^th place

1magiran.com

2,342^nd place

low place

1farsnews.ir

1,083^rd place

8,125^th place

1jstor.org

26^th place

20^th place

1rochester.edu

2,691^st place

1,948^th place

1logic.at

low place

1ox.ac.uk

613^th place

456^th place

archive.org

Patricia Springborg, ed. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes's Leviathan. Cambridge University Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-521-54521-1.

archive.today

Dear, Peter (2015). The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon. Cambridge University Press. p. Summary. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511894695.251. ISBN 9780521193528. Archived from the original on June 4, 2018. Retrieved May 6, 2021.

books.google.com

Merchant, Carolyn (1990). "Chapters 4, 9, 10". The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. Harper Collins. ISBN 0062505955.
Josephson-Storm, Jason (2017). "Chapter 2". The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-40336-6.
Margaret J. Osler (7 June 2004). Divine Will and the Mechanical Philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on Contingency and Necessity in the Created World. Cambridge University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-521-52492-6. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
S. Fisher (2005). Pierre Gassendi's Philosophy And Science: Atomism for Empiricists. BRILL. pp. 205 with note 1–6. ISBN 978-90-04-11996-3. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
Roy Porter; Katharine Park; Lorraine Daston (3 July 2006). The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 3, Early Modern Science. Cambridge University Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-521-57244-6. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
Sophie Roux; Daniel Garber (2013). The Mechanization of Natural Philosophy. Springer. p. 11 note 21. ISBN 978-94-007-4345-8. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
Daniel Garber (2003). The Cambridge history of seventeenth-century philosophy: Volume I. Cambridge University Press. p. 581. ISBN 978-0-521-53720-9. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
Andrew Janiak; Eric Schliesser (12 January 2012). Interpreting Newton: Critical Essays. Cambridge University Press. p. 34 with note 3. ISBN 978-0-521-76618-0. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers Shook, John. 2005 p. 2451 Biography of Colin Murray Turbayne on Google Books
Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers Shook, John. 2005 p. 2451 Biography of Colin Murray Turbayne on Google Books

cambridge.org

Dear, Peter (2015). The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon. Cambridge University Press. p. Summary. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511894695.251. ISBN 9780521193528. Archived from the original on June 4, 2018. Retrieved May 6, 2021.

doi.org

Dear, Peter (2015). The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon. Cambridge University Press. p. Summary. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511894695.251. ISBN 9780521193528. Archived from the original on June 4, 2018. Retrieved May 6, 2021.

farsnews.ir

"تحلیل و نقد فلسفه مکانیکی - خبرگزاری فارس" (in Persian). Retrieved 14 November 2021.

jstor.org

Hesse, Mary (1966). "Review of The Myth of Metaphor". Foundations of Language. 2 (3): 282–284. JSTOR 25000234.

logic.at

The Gödel Theorem and Human Nature, a talk given by Hilary Putnam in the Gödel centenary 2006 [1]

magiran.com

"روزنامه شرق (1399_05_23) فلسفه مکانیکی و پیدایش علم مدرن" (in Persian). Retrieved 14 November 2021.

ox.ac.uk

users.ox.ac.uk

Lucas, J. R., 1961, "Minds, Machines, and Gödel." Philosophy 36:112-27.

rochester.edu

sas.rochester.edu

The University of Rochester Department of Philosophy- Berkley Essay Prize Competition - History of the Prize Colin Turbayne's The Myth of Metaphor on rochester.edu

stanford.edu

plato.stanford.edu

Graham Oppy (20 January 2015). "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 27 April 2016. These Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments are, however, problematic, and there is wide consensus that they fail.