These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32958281)

  • 1. The benefits of acquiring interactional expertise: Why (some) philosophers of science should engage scientific communities.
    Plaisance KS
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2020 Oct; 83():53-62. PubMed ID: 32958281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Bringing tacit knowledge back to contributory and interactional expertise: A reply to Goddiksen.
    Reyes-Galindo LI; Duarte TR
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2015 Feb; 49():99-102. PubMed ID: 26109415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The value of practice: A critique of interactional expertise.
    Ribeiro R; Lima FP
    Soc Stud Sci; 2016 Apr; 46(2):282-311. PubMed ID: 27263240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Does environmental science crowd out non-epistemic values?
    Gillette K; Inkpen SA; DesRoches CT
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2021 Jun; 87():81-92. PubMed ID: 34111825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Value-entanglement and the integrity of scientific research.
    Resnik DB; Elliott KC
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2019 Jun; 75():1-11. PubMed ID: 31426942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Rethinking Moral Expertise.
    Priaulx N; Weinel M; Wrigley A
    Health Care Anal; 2016 Dec; 24(4):393-406. PubMed ID: 25103422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Expert or Esoteric? Philosophers Attribute Knowledge Differently Than All Other Academics.
    Starmans C; Friedman O
    Cogn Sci; 2020 Jul; 44(7):e12850. PubMed ID: 32583918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Epistemology for interdisciplinary research - shifting philosophical paradigms of science.
    Boon M; Van Baalen S
    Eur J Philos Sci; 2019; 9(1):16. PubMed ID: 30873248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Liberal-democratic values and philosophers' beliefs about moral expertise.
    Niv Y; Sulitzeanu-Kenan R
    Bioethics; 2023 Jul; 37(6):551-563. PubMed ID: 37192606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Ordinary language philosophy, explanation, and the historical turn in philosophy of science.
    Franco PL
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2021 Dec; 90():77-85. PubMed ID: 34592535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Challenging Expertise: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on democracy, public participation and scientific authority: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on scientific authority and public participation.
    Sorgner H
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2016 Jun; 57():114-20. PubMed ID: 27269270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Modified Imitation Game: A Method for Measuring Interactional Expertise.
    Arsal G; Suss J; Ward P; Ta V; Ringer R; Eccles DW
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():730985. PubMed ID: 34777110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An empirical perspective on moral expertise: Evidence from a global study of philosophers.
    Niv Y; Sulitzeanu-Kenan R
    Bioethics; 2022 Nov; 36(9):926-935. PubMed ID: 35971892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. What concept analysis in philosophy of science should be (and why competing philosophical analyses of gene concepts cannot be tested by polling scientists).
    Waters CK
    Hist Philos Life Sci; 2004; 26(1):29-58. PubMed ID: 15791805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clarifying interactional and contributory expertise.
    Goddiksen M
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2014 Sep; 47():111-7. PubMed ID: 25812358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The patient-physician interaction as a meeting of experts: one solution to the problem of patient non-adherence.
    Yelovich MC
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2016 Aug; 22(4):558-64. PubMed ID: 27189520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Hidden figures: epistemic costs and benefits of detecting (invisible) diversity in science.
    Peters U
    Eur J Philos Sci; 2021; 11(1):33. PubMed ID: 33686351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Knowledge, behaviour, and policy: questioning the epistemic presuppositions of applying behavioural science in public policymaking.
    Małecka M
    Synthese; 2021; 199(1-2):5311-5338. PubMed ID: 33564201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate.
    Böschen S
    Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2009 Jul; 16(5):508-20. PubMed ID: 19452181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Expertise Across Disciplines: Establishing Common Ground in Interdisciplinary Disaster Research Teams.
    Gilligan JM
    Risk Anal; 2021 Jul; 41(7):1171-1177. PubMed ID: 31546286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.