구획문제 (Korean Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "구획문제" in Korean language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Korean rank
3rd place
9th place
70th place
157th place
2nd place
3rd place
9th place
20th place
179th place
146th place
9,201st place
8,929th place

books.google.com

doi.org

dx.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. 

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. 20쪽. ISBN 9780226467740. 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? 
  • Smith, L.D. (1986). Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: A Reassessment of the Alliance. Stanford University Press. 314쪽. ISBN 9780804713016. LCCN 85030366. 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 1950's), 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. 
  • Taylor, C.A. (1996). Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation. Rhetoric of the Human Sciences Series. University of Wisconsin Press. 41쪽. ISBN 9780299150341. LCCN 96000180. 

stanford.edu

plato.stanford.edu

  • Hansson, Sven Ove (2008). Zalta, Edward N., 편집. “Science and Pseudo-Science”. 《The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy》 Fall 2008판. 4.2 Falsificationism. , "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations"

uwi.edu

cavehill.uwi.edu

youtube.com