Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2022.2098463
Vassilis Livanios
{"title":"The Tools of Metaphysics and the Metaphysics of Science","authors":"Vassilis Livanios","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2022.2098463","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2022.2098463","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"249 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43834375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2021.2002676
A. Krauss
ABSTRACT In the biomedical, behavioural and social sciences, the leading method used to estimate causal effects is commonly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that are generally viewed as both the source and justification of the most valid evidence. In studying the foundation and theory behind RCTs, the existing literature analyses important single issues and biases in isolation that influence causal outcomes in trials (such as randomisation, statistical probabilities and placebos). The common account of biased causal inference is described in a general way in terms of probabilistic imbalances between trial groups. This paper expands the common account of causal bias by distinguishing between the range of biases arising between trial groups but also within one of the groups or across the entire sample during trial design, implementation and analysis. This is done by providing concrete examples from highly influential RCT studies. In going beyond the existing RCT literature, the paper provides a broader, practice-based account of causal bias that specifies the between-group, within-group and across-group biases that affect the estimated causal results of trials – impacting both the effect size and statistical significance. Within this expanded framework, we can better identify the range of different types of biases we face in practice and address the central question about the overall validity of the RCT method and its causal claims. A study can face several smaller biases (related simultaneously to a smaller sample, smaller estimated effect, greater unblinding etc.) that generally add up to greater aggregate bias. Though difficult to measure precisely, it is important to assess and provide information in studies on how much different sources of bias, combined, can explain the estimated causal effect. The RCT method is thereby often the best we have to inform our policy decisions – and the evidence is strengthened when combined with multiple studies and other methods. Yet there is room for continually improving trials and identifying ways to reduce biases they face and to increase their overall validity. Implications are discussed.
{"title":"Assessing the Overall Validity of Randomised Controlled Trials","authors":"A. Krauss","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2021.2002676","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.2002676","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the biomedical, behavioural and social sciences, the leading method used to estimate causal effects is commonly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that are generally viewed as both the source and justification of the most valid evidence. In studying the foundation and theory behind RCTs, the existing literature analyses important single issues and biases in isolation that influence causal outcomes in trials (such as randomisation, statistical probabilities and placebos). The common account of biased causal inference is described in a general way in terms of probabilistic imbalances between trial groups. This paper expands the common account of causal bias by distinguishing between the range of biases arising between trial groups but also within one of the groups or across the entire sample during trial design, implementation and analysis. This is done by providing concrete examples from highly influential RCT studies. In going beyond the existing RCT literature, the paper provides a broader, practice-based account of causal bias that specifies the between-group, within-group and across-group biases that affect the estimated causal results of trials – impacting both the effect size and statistical significance. Within this expanded framework, we can better identify the range of different types of biases we face in practice and address the central question about the overall validity of the RCT method and its causal claims. A study can face several smaller biases (related simultaneously to a smaller sample, smaller estimated effect, greater unblinding etc.) that generally add up to greater aggregate bias. Though difficult to measure precisely, it is important to assess and provide information in studies on how much different sources of bias, combined, can explain the estimated causal effect. The RCT method is thereby often the best we have to inform our policy decisions – and the evidence is strengthened when combined with multiple studies and other methods. Yet there is room for continually improving trials and identifying ways to reduce biases they face and to increase their overall validity. Implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"159 - 182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45850665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2022.2057777
Stefaan Blancke, M. Boudry
ABSTRACT The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a long-standing problem in philosophy of science. Although philosophers have been hesitant to engage in this project since Larry Laudan announced its demise in the 1980s, pseudoscience as a societal phenomenon did not disappear, and many policy makers and scientists continue to use the concept. Therefore, the philosophical challenge of explaining what pseudoscience is and how it differs from genuine science still stands. Even though it might well be impossible to identify all pseudosciences by means of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, we can nonetheless, in a naturalistic fashion, establish that pseudoscience is a real phenomenon, diagnose recurring features and symptoms, and explain how these emerge. In this paper we argue that science builds on and emerges from interactive reasoning, a process that, under particular conditions, weeds out beliefs and practices that are not (sufficiently) justified. When people nevertheless think of these beliefs and practices as equivalent to or even better than the ones accepted by the scientific community, they are rightfully regarded as pseudoscience. We explain the processes by which beliefs and practices may degenerate into pseudoscience and discuss the implications of our demarcation approach for the understanding of pseudoscience.
{"title":"Pseudoscience as a Negative Outcome of Scientific Dialogue: A Pragmatic-Naturalistic Approach to the Demarcation Problem","authors":"Stefaan Blancke, M. Boudry","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2022.2057777","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2022.2057777","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a long-standing problem in philosophy of science. Although philosophers have been hesitant to engage in this project since Larry Laudan announced its demise in the 1980s, pseudoscience as a societal phenomenon did not disappear, and many policy makers and scientists continue to use the concept. Therefore, the philosophical challenge of explaining what pseudoscience is and how it differs from genuine science still stands. Even though it might well be impossible to identify all pseudosciences by means of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, we can nonetheless, in a naturalistic fashion, establish that pseudoscience is a real phenomenon, diagnose recurring features and symptoms, and explain how these emerge. In this paper we argue that science builds on and emerges from interactive reasoning, a process that, under particular conditions, weeds out beliefs and practices that are not (sufficiently) justified. When people nevertheless think of these beliefs and practices as equivalent to or even better than the ones accepted by the scientific community, they are rightfully regarded as pseudoscience. We explain the processes by which beliefs and practices may degenerate into pseudoscience and discuss the implications of our demarcation approach for the understanding of pseudoscience.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"183 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46903288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2022.2054396
S. Tresker
ABSTRACT Establishing the effectiveness of medical treatments is one of the most important aspects of medical practice. Bradford Hill's viewpoints play an important role in inferring causality in medicine, and EBM+ seeks to improve evidence-based medicine, which is influential in establishing treatment effectiveness. At EBM+'s foundations lies the Russo–Williamson thesis (RWT), which can be seen as providing a reduction of Hill's viewpoints into those involving difference-making and mechanistic evidence, both of which are claimed by the RWT's proponents to be typically required for establishing causal claims in medicine. Yet little has been written on whether and how the RWT, EBM+, and Hill's viewpoints establish treatment effectiveness. This could be because of uncertainty over what treatment effectiveness is. I provide an account of treatment effectiveness, analysing the role of the RWT, EBM+, and Hill's viewpoints in this regard. I argue that Hill's viewpoints and EBM+ can be useful in helping to evaluate evidence, but cannot directly establish or confirm treatment effectiveness. This is partly because effectiveness, I claim, is subject to inductive risk and therefore determined by non-epistemic values, neither of which Hill's viewpoints nor EBM+ offer guidance on. I conclude by reinterpreting Hill's viewpoints in light of establishing treatment effectiveness.
{"title":"Treatment Effectiveness and the Russo–Williamson Thesis, EBM+, and Bradford Hill's Viewpoints","authors":"S. Tresker","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2022.2054396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2022.2054396","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Establishing the effectiveness of medical treatments is one of the most important aspects of medical practice. Bradford Hill's viewpoints play an important role in inferring causality in medicine, and EBM+ seeks to improve evidence-based medicine, which is influential in establishing treatment effectiveness. At EBM+'s foundations lies the Russo–Williamson thesis (RWT), which can be seen as providing a reduction of Hill's viewpoints into those involving difference-making and mechanistic evidence, both of which are claimed by the RWT's proponents to be typically required for establishing causal claims in medicine. Yet little has been written on whether and how the RWT, EBM+, and Hill's viewpoints establish treatment effectiveness. This could be because of uncertainty over what treatment effectiveness is. I provide an account of treatment effectiveness, analysing the role of the RWT, EBM+, and Hill's viewpoints in this regard. I argue that Hill's viewpoints and EBM+ can be useful in helping to evaluate evidence, but cannot directly establish or confirm treatment effectiveness. This is partly because effectiveness, I claim, is subject to inductive risk and therefore determined by non-epistemic values, neither of which Hill's viewpoints nor EBM+ offer guidance on. I conclude by reinterpreting Hill's viewpoints in light of establishing treatment effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"131 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42238984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2021.2015678
T. Baetu
ABSTRACT According to the hypothesis-generator account, valid extrapolations from a source to a target system are circular, since they rely on knowledge of relevant similarities and differences that can only be obtained by investigating the target, thus removing the need to extrapolate; hence, extrapolative reasoning can only be useful as a method for generating hypotheses. I reject this view in favour of an inferential account, focused on extrapolations underpinning the aggregation of experimental results, and explore two lines of argumentation supporting the conclusion that these extrapolations can be validated in a noncircular manner. The first argument relies on formal proofs of inferential validity demonstrating that it is possible to reason from prior knowledge of causal structures in order to determine whether a claim can be extrapolated. The second argument builds on the fact that the hypothesis-generator account overlooks key inferential and experimental practices resulting in progressively better-informed extrapolations.
{"title":"In Defence of an Inferential Account of Extrapolation","authors":"T. Baetu","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2021.2015678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.2015678","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT According to the hypothesis-generator account, valid extrapolations from a source to a target system are circular, since they rely on knowledge of relevant similarities and differences that can only be obtained by investigating the target, thus removing the need to extrapolate; hence, extrapolative reasoning can only be useful as a method for generating hypotheses. I reject this view in favour of an inferential account, focused on extrapolations underpinning the aggregation of experimental results, and explore two lines of argumentation supporting the conclusion that these extrapolations can be validated in a noncircular manner. The first argument relies on formal proofs of inferential validity demonstrating that it is possible to reason from prior knowledge of causal structures in order to determine whether a claim can be extrapolated. The second argument builds on the fact that the hypothesis-generator account overlooks key inferential and experimental practices resulting in progressively better-informed extrapolations.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"81 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41733816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2022.2041969
Erez Firt, M. Hemmo, O. Shenker
ABSTRACT According to the so-called Hempel’s Dilemma, the thesis of physicalism is either false or empty. Our intention in this paper is not to propose a solution to the Dilemma, but rather to argue as follows: to the extent that Hempel’s Dilemma applies to physicalism it equally applies to any theory that gives a deep-structure and changeable account of our experience or of high-level theories. In particular, we will show that it also applies to mind–body dualistic theories. The scope of Hempel’s Dilemma turns out to be very wide: it is a special case of a general sceptical argument against changeable deep-structure theories in and outside science.
{"title":"Hempel’s Dilemma: Not Only for Physicalism*","authors":"Erez Firt, M. Hemmo, O. Shenker","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2022.2041969","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2022.2041969","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT According to the so-called Hempel’s Dilemma, the thesis of physicalism is either false or empty. Our intention in this paper is not to propose a solution to the Dilemma, but rather to argue as follows: to the extent that Hempel’s Dilemma applies to physicalism it equally applies to any theory that gives a deep-structure and changeable account of our experience or of high-level theories. In particular, we will show that it also applies to mind–body dualistic theories. The scope of Hempel’s Dilemma turns out to be very wide: it is a special case of a general sceptical argument against changeable deep-structure theories in and outside science.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"101 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44820364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2021.2024786
V. Matarese
ABSTRACT The paper explores a particular line of objection against wave-function realism. This view, advocated by Bell (1987) and presently defended by Albert (1996), North (2013) and Ney (2016), claims that the quantum wave function is a high-dimensional physical field. Normally, wave-function realism has been criticized for its ontological commitments, which are regarded as empirically unsupportable in principle and as violating empirical coherence. In this paper, I investigate whether there are any methodological arguments for endorsing such an ontology and whether they are sound. In particular, I home in on and discuss three arguments that may be used to support wave-function realism: (i) the argument from laws; (ii) the argument from the complete information of the system; (iii) the argument from explanation. My conclusion is that these arguments do not provide any good methodological grounds for inferring the existence of a high-dimensional physical field from quantum theory.
{"title":"On The Methodological Arguments for Wave−Function Realism","authors":"V. Matarese","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2021.2024786","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.2024786","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper explores a particular line of objection against wave-function realism. This view, advocated by Bell (1987) and presently defended by Albert (1996), North (2013) and Ney (2016), claims that the quantum wave function is a high-dimensional physical field. Normally, wave-function realism has been criticized for its ontological commitments, which are regarded as empirically unsupportable in principle and as violating empirical coherence. In this paper, I investigate whether there are any methodological arguments for endorsing such an ontology and whether they are sound. In particular, I home in on and discuss three arguments that may be used to support wave-function realism: (i) the argument from laws; (ii) the argument from the complete information of the system; (iii) the argument from explanation. My conclusion is that these arguments do not provide any good methodological grounds for inferring the existence of a high-dimensional physical field from quantum theory.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"63 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42680534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2021.1978038
Slobodan Perović
ABSTRACT Ian Hacking has argued that the notions of experiment and observation are distinct, not even the opposite ends of a continuum. More recently, other authors have emphasised their continuity, saying it is futile to distinguish between them as they belong on a continuum of epistemic activities. I take a middle road by suggesting that in scientific practice, experiment and observation constitute a continuum, but we can identify methodological and pragmatic aspects that define it, as well as various points on it that meaningfully delineate scientific practices. I explain the implications of the location of research projects on the continuum for scientists’ epistemic responsibilities and their ethical and funding concerns.
{"title":"Observation, Experiment, and Scientific Practice","authors":"Slobodan Perović","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2021.1978038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.1978038","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Ian Hacking has argued that the notions of experiment and observation are distinct, not even the opposite ends of a continuum. More recently, other authors have emphasised their continuity, saying it is futile to distinguish between them as they belong on a continuum of epistemic activities. I take a middle road by suggesting that in scientific practice, experiment and observation constitute a continuum, but we can identify methodological and pragmatic aspects that define it, as well as various points on it that meaningfully delineate scientific practices. I explain the implications of the location of research projects on the continuum for scientists’ epistemic responsibilities and their ethical and funding concerns.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"1 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42129411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2021.1980650
A. Tympas
For Harry Collins, the key to understanding the limits and prospects of artificial intelligence is ‘context’, that is, the way computers become ‘embedded’ (or fail to do so) in human society. Incre...
{"title":"Artifictional Intelligence: Against Humanity’s Surrender to Computers","authors":"A. Tympas","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2021.1980650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.1980650","url":null,"abstract":"For Harry Collins, the key to understanding the limits and prospects of artificial intelligence is ‘context’, that is, the way computers become ‘embedded’ (or fail to do so) in human society. Incre...","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"59 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41447716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2021.2001723
Quentin Ruyant
ABSTRACT I critically examine the assumption that the theoretical structure that varies under theoretical symmetries is redundant and should be eliminated from a metaphysical picture of the universe, following a ‘symmetry to reality’ inference. I do so by analysing the status of coordinate change symmetries taking a pragmatic approach. I argue that coordinate systems function as indexical devices, and play an important pragmatic role for representing concrete physical systems. I examine the implications of considering this pragmatic role seriously, taking what I call a perspectivist stance. My conclusion is that under a perspectivist stance, all symmetries (including local gauge symmetries) potentially have a direct empirical status: they point to dynamical aspects that are invariant under changes of operationalisation, and they constitute a guide not to reality, but to nomology and kinship.
{"title":"Symmetries, Indexicality and the Perspectivist Stance","authors":"Quentin Ruyant","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2021.2001723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.2001723","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I critically examine the assumption that the theoretical structure that varies under theoretical symmetries is redundant and should be eliminated from a metaphysical picture of the universe, following a ‘symmetry to reality’ inference. I do so by analysing the status of coordinate change symmetries taking a pragmatic approach. I argue that coordinate systems function as indexical devices, and play an important pragmatic role for representing concrete physical systems. I examine the implications of considering this pragmatic role seriously, taking what I call a perspectivist stance. My conclusion is that under a perspectivist stance, all symmetries (including local gauge symmetries) potentially have a direct empirical status: they point to dynamical aspects that are invariant under changes of operationalisation, and they constitute a guide not to reality, but to nomology and kinship.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"21 - 39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49145336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：