The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational philosophy of science
Abstract
Philosophy of science attempts to describe all parts of the scientific process in a general way in order to facilitate the description, execution and improvements of this process.So far, all proposed philosophies have only covered existing processes and disciplines partially and imperfectly.In particular logical approaches have always received a lot of attention due to attempts to fundamentally address issues with the definition of science as a discipline with reductionist theories.We propose a new way to approach the problem from the perspective of computational complexity and argue why this approach may be better than previous propositions based on pure logic and mathematics.Many scientists call for distinguishing computational science as a new kind of science (Wolfram 2002;Angius, Primiero, and Turner 2021).It is extremely important to provide a sensible philosophical definition of computational science since the discipline is rooted in disciplines of data science and empirical modelling of nature.The search for a satisfactory definition leads us to a new approach to the philosophy of science.It suggests that computational science may not be a new formal method of program construction but also a new approach to the philosophy of science itself.And indeed allows us to generalization of philosophy of science in a much more satisfactory way than many efforts to date(
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya.
Woese, C. R., Kandler, O., & Wheelis, M. L. (1990) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576 · Cited by 6,128
Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper
Einstein, A. (1905) · Annalen der Physik · doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004 · Cited by 4,385
Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank
Berman, H., Henrick, K., & Nakamura, H. (2003) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/nsb1203-980 · Cited by 3,093
Feynman and the visualization of space-time processes
Schweber, S. S. (1986) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.58.449 · Cited by 161
Cited by
The computational complexity of abduction
Bylander, T., Allemang, D., Tanner, M. C., & Josephson, J. R. (1991) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(91)90005-5 · Cited by 406
Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings.
Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.524 · Cited by 352
The Probability Heuristics Model of Syllogistic Reasoning
Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (1999) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0696 · Cited by 324
Models of visual word recognition: Sampling the state of the art.
Jacobs, A. M., & Grainger, J. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1311 · Cited by 319
Explanation in Case-Based Reasoning—Perspectives and Goals
Sørmo, F., Cassens, J., & Aamodt, A. (2005) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-005-4607-7 · Cited by 239
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1989-01-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 05
- Pages
- 26-2691-26-2691
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2075725716
- Cited by
- 644
- References
- 5
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computational philosophy of science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.26-2691
- The paper
- Computational philosophy of science. (1989). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.26-2691
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.