Abstract
In the present chapter, we defend an inferential account both of explanation and scientific modelling. Our account is ‘comprehensive’ in the sense that not only our approach covers both aspects of scientific activity, but also because we assume a pragmatic perspective that tries to capture the intrinsic versatility that scientific models and explanations may adopt in the course of scientific discourse. Our view is essentially inspired by the work of Robert Brandom in the philosophy of language, in particular what he call ‘an inferential semantics grounded in a normative pragmatics’ (see Brandom 1994, 2000), but also takes elements from other authors, mainly from argumentation theory and epistemology. As many philosophers of science that favour an inferential perspective, we see scientific models as inferential tools that help to extract inferences about the target in relation to specific goals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
This extrapolation of the idea of commitment to the context of scientific knowledge is not new. Polanyi (1958) argued that commitment plays an essential role in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
- 3.
The terms of ‘explainer’ and ‘explainee’ are used by Goldberg (1965) and other authors.
- 4.
By equating the meaning of a concept to its set of inferential links to other concepts, Brandom explains also the notion of ‘understanding a concept’ just as the capacity of performing in a proper way those inferential moves. See Brandom (1994, 85 and ff.).
References
Achinstein, P. 1983. The nature of explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Achinstein, P. 2010. Evidence, explanation, and realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
de Donato, X., and J. Zamora-Bonilla. 2009. Credibility, idealisation, and model building: An inferential approach. Erkenntnis 70: 101–118.
de Regt, H.W., and D. Dieks. 2005. A contextual approach to scientific understanding. Synthese 144: 137–170.
Faye, J. 2007. The pragmatic-rhetorical theory of explanation. In Rethinking explanation, eds. J. Persson and P. Ylikoski, 43–68. Dordrecht: Springer.
Goldberg, L. 1965. An inquiry into the nature of accounting. Wisconsin: Arno Press. (1980, reprint).
Hintikka, J. 1986. Logic of conversation as a logic of dialogue. In Intentions, Categories and Ends, eds. R. Grandy and R. Warner, 259–272. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Keil, F.C. 2006. Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 227–254.
Kibble, R. 2006. Reasoning about propositional commitments in dialogue. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (1962).
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. 2004. Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. 2007. Dialogical models of explanation. In Explanation-aware computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI workshop, association for the advancement of artificial intelligence, Technical Report WS-07-06, AAAI Press, 2007,1–9.
Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. New York: State University of New York Press.
Zamora-Bonilla, J. 2002. Scientific inference and the pursuit of fame: A contractarian approach. Philosophy of Science 69: 300–323.
Zamora-Bonilla, J. 2006a. Science studies and the theory of games. Perspectives on Science 14: 525–547.
Zamora-Bonilla, J. 2006b. Science as a persuasion game. Episteme 2: 189–201.
Acknowledgement
This chapter has received financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Research Projects Ref.: FFI2008-03607/FISO, FFI2008-01580/FISO, and FFI2009-08828/FISO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
de Donato-Rodríguez, X., Zamora-Bonilla, J. (2012). Explanation and Modelization in a Comprehensive Inferential Account. In: de Regt, H., Hartmann, S., Okasha, S. (eds) EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2404-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2404-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2403-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2404-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)