مسئله مرزبندی (Persian Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "مسئله مرزبندی" in Persian language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank Persian rank

5doi.org

2^nd place

3books.google.com

3^rd place

6^th place

3worldcat.org

5^th place

12^th place

2archive.org

6^th place

9^th place

2stanford.edu

179^th place

181^st place

1philarchive.org

low place

1loc.gov

70^th place

178^th place

1nih.gov

4^th place

5^th place

1semanticscholar.org

11^th place

52^nd place

archive.org

Cover, J. A.; Curd, Martin, eds. (1998). Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. pp. 1–82. ISBN 978-0-393-97175-0.
Lloyd, G.E.R. (1979), Magic Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–27, ISBN 0-521-29641-2

books.google.com

Laudan, Larry (1983), "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", in Cohen, R.S.; Laudan, L. (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 76, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 111–127, ISBN 90-277-1533-5. Alternative source: [۱]
Lakatos, I.; Feyerabend, P.; Motterlini, M. (1999). For and Against Method: Including Lakatos's Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence. University of Chicago Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-226-46774-0. LCCN 99013581. The demarcation problem may be formulated in the following terms: what distinguishes science from pseudoscience? This is an extreme way of putting it, since the more general problem, called the Generalized Demarcation Problem, is really the problem of the appraisal of scientific theories, and attempts to answer the question: when is one theory better than another?
Grayling, AC. , Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 67–68.

doi.org

Resnik, David B. (2000). "A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 31 (2): 249–267. doi:10.1016/S0039-3681(00)00004-2.
Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.001.0001. ISBN 9780226051796. OCLC 824088394.
Fernandez-Beanato, Damian (2020). "Cicero's demarcation of science: a report of shared criteria". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 83: 97–102. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.04.002. PMID 32958286. S2CID 216477897.
Watling, John (January 1967). "Classics of Analytical Philosophy. By Robert R. Ammerman. (McGraw-Hill. 1965. Pp. 413. Price £2 12s.)". Philosophy. 42 (159): 95. doi:10.1017/s0031819100000954. ISSN 0031-8191.
Popper, Karl (4 November 2005). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203994627. ISBN 978-0-203-99462-7.

loc.gov

lccn.loc.gov

Lakatos, I.; Feyerabend, P.; Motterlini, M. (1999). For and Against Method: Including Lakatos's Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence. University of Chicago Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-226-46774-0. LCCN 99013581. The demarcation problem may be formulated in the following terms: what distinguishes science from pseudoscience? This is an extreme way of putting it, since the more general problem, called the Generalized Demarcation Problem, is really the problem of the appraisal of scientific theories, and attempts to answer the question: when is one theory better than another?

nih.gov

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Fernandez-Beanato, Damian (2020). "Cicero's demarcation of science: a report of shared criteria". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 83: 97–102. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.04.002. PMID 32958286. S2CID 216477897.

philarchive.org

Laudan, Larry (1983), "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", in Cohen, R.S.; Laudan, L. (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 76, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 111–127, ISBN 90-277-1533-5. Alternative source: [۱]

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

Fernandez-Beanato, Damian (2020). "Cicero's demarcation of science: a report of shared criteria". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 83: 97–102. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.04.002. PMID 32958286. S2CID 216477897.

stanford.edu

plato.stanford.edu

Hansson, Sven Ove (2008). "Science and Pseudo-Science". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.). 4.1 The Logical Positivists.
Hansson, Sven Ove (2008). "Science and Pseudo-Science". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.). 4.2 Falsificationism.

worldcat.org

Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.001.0001. ISBN 9780226051796. OCLC 824088394.
Watling, John (January 1967). "Classics of Analytical Philosophy. By Robert R. Ammerman. (McGraw-Hill. 1965. Pp. 413. Price £2 12s.)". Philosophy. 42 (159): 95. doi:10.1017/s0031819100000954. ISSN 0031-8191.
Hume, David (4 September 2018). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. ISBN 9788027246601. OCLC 1055285629.