↓ Skip to main content

The naturalism of the sciences

Overview of attention for article published in Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The naturalism of the sciences
Published in
Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.11.012
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The sciences are characterized by what is sometimes called a "methodological naturalism," which disregards talk of divine agency. In response to those who argue that this reflects a dogmatic materialism, a number of philosophers have offered a pragmatic defense. The naturalism of the sciences, they argue, is provisional and defeasible: it is justified by the fact that unsuccessful theistic explanations have been superseded by successful natural ones. But this defense is inconsistent with the history of the sciences. The sciences have always exhibited what we call a domain naturalism. They have never invoked divine agency, but have always focused on the causal structure of the natural world. It is not the case, therefore, that the sciences once employed theistic explanations and then abandoned them. The naturalism of the sciences is as old as science itself.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 3 10%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Philosophy 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Other 9 31%
Unknown 8 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,285,801
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A
#55
of 963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,158
of 490,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 963 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 490,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.