1,720,964 research outputs found
The Interpretation Problem of Quantum Mechanics and Scientific Realism
No full textScientific realism holds that the physical world exists independently of human perception, and that the aim of science is to provide a true description of the world. Entities, properties of entities and structures consisting of relations between entities could be regarded as the elements of reality from a realistic point of view. The interpretation problem of quantum mechanics is an attempt to answer the question; which properties of physical entities are real in quantum mechanics? That is, this problem presupposes that properties of physical entities can be regarded as the elements of reality. In the present paper I discuss the interpretation problem of quantum mechanics in order to examine which elements are real. I conclude that the properties of physical entities cannot be regarded as the elements of reality, and that the elements of reality are entities and structures consisting of relations between entities
<研究論文(原著論文)>整合度の観点からみた統合
Full text linkMyrvold (2003) has offered a Bayesian account of unification. He defined a measure U_M(p, q;h) of the extent to which a hypothesis h unifies phenomena p and q. According to his proposal, U_M(p, q;h) > 0 means that h unifies p and q. He has shown that the Copernican system unifies phenomena of the planets in his sense. Lange (2004) pointed out that U_M(p, q;h) < 0 if h is a common cause explanation of phenomena p and q. Therefore this is a different kind of unification from Myrvold's. In the present paper, I examine what these kinds of unification have in common. In order to tackle this problem, I define another measure U_G(p, q;h) of the extent to which h unifies phenomena p and q in terms of Glass' coherence. It is shown that U_G(p, q;h) is positive if h is a common cause explanation of p and q as well as h being the Copernican system
<研究論文(原著論文)>グッドによるベイズ主義的な確証度
Full text linkBayesian measure c(H, E | K) of confirmation is the degree to which known evidence E supports a given hypothesis H relative to background knowledge K. This measure should be positive when E confirms H, negative when E disconfirms H and zero when E is irrelevant to H. There are many Bayesian measures of confirmation which satisfy this condition. log Pr(E | H & K)/Pr(E | ~ H & K), which was proposed by Good, is one of them. In the present paper, it is shown that only Good's measure is valid in the case where the measure c(H, E1 & E2 | K) of confirmation is the sum of c(H, E1 | K) and c(H, E2 | K) when, in Reichenbach's terminology, H screens off E1 from E2
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
