Filsafat ilmu (Indonesian Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Filsafat ilmu" in Indonesian language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Indonesian rank
1st place
1st place
179th place
224th place
2nd place
4th place
low place
4,681st place
3rd place
6th place
6th place
2nd place
4th place
13th place
792nd place
8th place
26th place
53rd place
5th place
7th place
3,413th place
1,090th place
70th place
87th place
low place
low place
low place
915th place
low place
143rd place
120th place
59th place
low place
726th place
1,865th place
8,102nd place
887th place
731st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
3,930th place
2,579th place
7,275th place
2,706th place
207th place
525th place
low place
low place
921st place
757th place
low place
7,079th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
27th place
81st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
2,248th place
3,593rd place
1,944th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
274th place
596th place
7,755th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
6,653rd place
699th place
1,239th place
121st place
126th place
low place
944th place
794th place
653rd place
2,117th place
4,066th place
18th place
44th place
low place
low place
1,226th place
1,806th place
9,207th place
low place
1,523rd place
2,247th place
1,999th place
6,825th place
301st place
299th place

184.140

31.42.184.140

academia.edu

archive.org

  • Levin, Michael (1984). "What Kind of Explanation is Truth?". Dalam Jarrett Leplin. Scientific Realism (dalam bahasa Inggris). Berkeley: University of California Press. hlm. 124–1139. ISBN 978-0-520-05155-3. 
  • Aristotle, "Prior Analytics", Hugh Tredennick (trans.), pp. 181–531 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, 1938.
  • Smith, L.D. (1986). Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: A Reassessment of the AlliancePerlu mendaftar (gratis). Stanford University Press. hlm. 314. ISBN 978-0-8047-1301-6. LCCN 85030366. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. The secondary and historical literature on logical positivism affords substantial grounds for concluding that logical positivism failed to solve many of the central problems it generated for itself. Prominent among the unsolved problems was the failure to find an acceptable statement of the verifiability (later confirmability) criterion of meaningfulness. Until a competing tradition emerged (about the late 1950s), the problems of logical positivism continued to be attacked from within that tradition. But as the new tradition in the philosophy of science began to demonstrate its effectiveness—by dissolving and rephrasing old problems as well as by generating new ones—philosophers began to shift allegiances to the new tradition, even though that tradition has yet to receive a canonical formulation. 
  • Bunge, M.A. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social SciencePerlu mendaftar (gratis). Yale University Press. hlm. 317. ISBN 978-0-300-06606-7. LCCN lc96004399. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. To conclude, logical positivism was progressive compared with the classical positivism of Ptolemy, David Hume|Hume, Jean le Rond d'Alembert|d'Alembert, Auguste Comte|Comte, John Stuart Mill, and Ernst Mach. It was even more so by comparison with its contemporary rivals neo-Thomism, neo-Kantianism, intuitionism, dialectical materialism, phenomenology, and existentialism. However, neo-positivism failed dismally to give a faithful account of science, whether natural or social. It failed because it remained anchored to sense-data and to a phenomenalist metaphysics, overrated the power of induction and underrated that of hypothesis, and denounced realism and materialism as metaphysical nonsense. Although it has never been practiced consistently in the advanced natural sciences and has been criticized by many philosophers, notably Popper (1959 [1935], 1963), logical positivism remains the tacit philosophy of many scientists. Regrettably, the anti-positivism fashionable in the metatheory of social science is often nothing but an excuse for sloppiness and wild speculation. 

betterevaluation.org

  • "Simple Random Sampling". 2010-12-14. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2018-01-02. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. Each SRS is made of individuals drawn from a larger population, completely at random. As a result, said individuals have an equal chance of being selected throughout the sampling process. The benefit of SRS is that as a result, the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample which is representative of the population, which ensures statistically valid conclusions. 

binus.ac.id

journal.binus.ac.id

bmj.com

books.google.com

bristol.ac.uk

research-information.bristol.ac.uk

cabmakassar.org

caltech.edu

calteches.library.caltech.edu

cloudflare-ipfs.com

dictionary.com

doi.org

drury.edu

  • "Popper, Falsifiability, and the Failure of Positivism". 2000-08-07. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2014-01-07. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. The upshot is that the positivists seem caught between insisting on the V.C. [Verifiability Criterion]—but for no defensible reason—or admitting that the V.C. requires a background language, etc., which opens the door to relativism, etc. In light of this dilemma, many folk—especially following Popper's "last-ditch" effort to "save" empiricism/positivism/realism with the falsifiability criterion—have agreed that positivism is a dead-end. 

escholarship.org

cloudfront.escholarship.org

fitelson.org

  • Salmon, Merrilee; John Earman, Clark Glymour, James G. Lenno, Peter Machamer, J.E. McGuire, John D. Norton, Wesley C. Salmon, Kenneth F. Schaffner (1992). Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (PDF) (dalam bahasa Inggris). Cambridge: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-663345-7. Diarsipkan (PDF) dari versi asli tanggal 2023-06-29. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-09. 

gontor.ac.id

repo.unida.gontor.ac.id

google.co.id

books.google.co.id

google.co.id

  • Saragih, Hisarma; Hutagalung, Stimson; Mawati, Arin Tentrem; Chamidah, Dina; Khalik, Muh Fihris; Sahri, Sahri; Wula, Paulina; Purba, Bonaraja; Fransiska Purba, Sri Rezeki; Kato, Iskandar (2021). Filsafat Pendidikan. Yayasan Kita Menulis. hlm. 114. ISBN 978-0-8264-9006-3. 

griffith.edu.au

ict.griffith.edu.au

harvard.edu

news.harvard.edu

hku.hk

philosophy.hku.hk

icts.res.in

id1lib.org

jhu.edu

muse.jhu.edu

jstor.org

loc.gov

lccn.loc.gov

  • Smith, L.D. (1986). Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: A Reassessment of the AlliancePerlu mendaftar (gratis). Stanford University Press. hlm. 314. ISBN 978-0-8047-1301-6. LCCN 85030366. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. The secondary and historical literature on logical positivism affords substantial grounds for concluding that logical positivism failed to solve many of the central problems it generated for itself. Prominent among the unsolved problems was the failure to find an acceptable statement of the verifiability (later confirmability) criterion of meaningfulness. Until a competing tradition emerged (about the late 1950s), the problems of logical positivism continued to be attacked from within that tradition. But as the new tradition in the philosophy of science began to demonstrate its effectiveness—by dissolving and rephrasing old problems as well as by generating new ones—philosophers began to shift allegiances to the new tradition, even though that tradition has yet to receive a canonical formulation. 
  • Bunge, M.A. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social SciencePerlu mendaftar (gratis). Yale University Press. hlm. 317. ISBN 978-0-300-06606-7. LCCN lc96004399. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. To conclude, logical positivism was progressive compared with the classical positivism of Ptolemy, David Hume|Hume, Jean le Rond d'Alembert|d'Alembert, Auguste Comte|Comte, John Stuart Mill, and Ernst Mach. It was even more so by comparison with its contemporary rivals neo-Thomism, neo-Kantianism, intuitionism, dialectical materialism, phenomenology, and existentialism. However, neo-positivism failed dismally to give a faithful account of science, whether natural or social. It failed because it remained anchored to sense-data and to a phenomenalist metaphysics, overrated the power of induction and underrated that of hypothesis, and denounced realism and materialism as metaphysical nonsense. Although it has never been practiced consistently in the advanced natural sciences and has been criticized by many philosophers, notably Popper (1959 [1935], 1963), logical positivism remains the tacit philosophy of many scientists. Regrettably, the anti-positivism fashionable in the metatheory of social science is often nothing but an excuse for sloppiness and wild speculation. 

lri.fr

lse.ac.uk

www2.lse.ac.uk

metaphysicspirit.com

  • Bacon, Francis Novum Organum Diarsipkan 2021-11-30 di Wayback Machine. (The New Organon), 1620. Bacon's work described many of the accepted principles, underscoring the importance of empirical results, data gathering and experiment. Encyclopædia Britannica (1911), "Bacon, Francis" states: [In Novum Organum, we ] "proceed to apply what is perhaps the most valuable part of the Baconian method, the process of exclusion or rejection. This elimination of the non-essential, ..., is the most important of Bacon's contributions to the logic of induction, and that in which, as he repeatedly says, his method differs from all previous philosophies."

monoskop.org

nih.gov

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

nobelprize.org

oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

paricenter.com

pbworks.com

epistemh.pbworks.com

philarchive.org

philpapers.org

psu.edu

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

researchgate.net

rutgers.edu

rci.rutgers.edu

  • Mason, Kelby; Sripada, Chandra Sekhar; Stich, Stephen (2010). "Philosophy of Psychology" (PDF). Dalam Moral, Dermot. Routledge Companion to Twentieth-Century Philosophy. London: Routledge. Diarsipkan dari versi asli (PDF) tanggal 2017-05-17. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 

sfu.ca

southeastern.edu

www2.southeastern.edu

springer.com

link.springer.com

stanford.edu

plato.stanford.edu

  • Thornton, Stephen (2006). "Karl Popper". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (dalam bahasa Inggris). Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2007-06-27. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-02. 
  • Uebel, Thomas (2006). "Vienna Circle". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2007-06-26. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-04. 
  • Science and Pseudo-Science (dalam bahasa Inggris), Stanford: Oxford American Dictionary, 2008, diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2017-06-11, diakses tanggal 2021-12-04 
  • Woodward, James (2003). "Scientific Explanation". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (dalam bahasa Inggris). Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2007-07-06. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-09. 
  • Vickers, John (2013). "The Problem of Induction". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (dalam bahasa Inggris). Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2014-04-07. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-09. 
  • Vickers, John (2013). "The Problem of Induction". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2014-04-07. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-09. 
  • Baker, Alan (2013). "Simplicity". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2014-03-26. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Bogen, Jim (2013). "Theory and Observation in Science". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2014-02-27. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-09. 
  • Boyd, Richard (2002). "Scientific Realism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2007-07-06. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-09. 
  • Longino, Helen (2013). "The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (dalam bahasa Inggris). Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2014-03-26. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-09. 
  • "John Stuart Mill (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". plato.stanford.edu. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2010-01-06. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006). "Vienna Circle". plato.stanford.edu. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2015-08-10. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-10. 
  • Bird, Alexander (2013). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "Thomas Kuhn". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2017-07-13. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Papineau, David "Naturalism" Diarsipkan 2018-04-26 di Wayback Machine., in "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
  • Olsson, Erik (2014). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2018-09-14. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Wheeler, Michael (2015). "Martin Heidegger". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2015-10-16. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. 
  • Cat, Jordi (2013). "The Unity of Science". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2014-04-07. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Paul Feyerabend". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2023-06-15. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-09. 
  • Bickle, John; Mandik, Peter; Landreth, Anthony (2010). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "The Philosophy of Neuroscience". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2013-12-02. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Romeijn, Jan-Willem (2014). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "Philosophy of Statistics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2018-09-14. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Horsten, Leon (2015). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "Philosophy of Mathematics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2021-05-16. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Ismael, Jenann (2015). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "Quantum Mechanics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2015-11-06. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Weisberg, Michael; Needham, Paul; Hendry, Robin (2011). "Philosophy of Chemistry". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2014-04-07. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12. 
  • Murphy, Dominic (Spring 2015). "Philosophy of Psychiatry Diarsipkan 2019-03-18 di Wayback Machine.". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, editor oleh Edward N. Zalta. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-12.
  • Bickle, John; Mandik, Peter; Landreth, Anthony (2010). Zalta, Edward N., ed. "The Philosophy of Neuroscience". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2013-12-02. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. 
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008). "Auguste Comte". plato.stanford.edu. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2017-10-11. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. 

ufl.edu

users.clas.ufl.edu

uinsgd.ac.id

digilib.uinsgd.ac.id

um-palembang.ac.id

repository.um-palembang.ac.id

  • Aprita, Serlika (2020). Filsafat Hukum (PDF) (edisi ke-2). Depok: Raja Grafindo Persada. hlm. 30. ISBN 0-226-45803-2. Diarsipkan (PDF) dari versi asli tanggal 2023-04-06. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. 

unb.ca

ifmlab.for.unb.ca

  • Simpson, George Gaylord (1963). "Biology and the Nature of Science" (PDF). Science. 139 (3550): 81–88. Diarsipkan dari versi asli (PDF) tanggal 2021-12-13. Diakses tanggal 2021-12-13. Uniformity is an unprovable postulate justified, or indeed required, on two grounds. First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. Second, only with this postulate is a rational interpretation of history possible and we are justified in seeking—as scientists we must seek—such a rational interpretation 

usd.ac.id

repository.usd.ac.id

web.archive.org

wikisource.org

en.wikisource.org

  • Bacon, Francis Novum Organum Diarsipkan 2021-11-30 di Wayback Machine. (The New Organon), 1620. Bacon's work described many of the accepted principles, underscoring the importance of empirical results, data gathering and experiment. Encyclopædia Britannica (1911), "Bacon, Francis" states: [In Novum Organum, we ] "proceed to apply what is perhaps the most valuable part of the Baconian method, the process of exclusion or rejection. This elimination of the non-essential, ..., is the most important of Bacon's contributions to the logic of induction, and that in which, as he repeatedly says, his method differs from all previous philosophies."

worldcat.org

wpmucdn.com

cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com