Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 377–402 | Cite as

An erotetic approach to explanation by specification

  • Theo A. F. Kuipers
  • Andrzej Wiśniewski
Article

Abstract

In earlier publications of the first author it was shown that intentional explanation of actions, functional explanation of biological traits and causal explanation of abnormal events share a common structure. They are called explanation by specification (of a goal, a biological function, an abnormal causal factor, respectively) as opposed to explanation by subsumption under a law. Explanation by specification is guided by a schematic train of thought, of which the argumentative steps not concerning questions were already shown to be logically valid (elementary) arguments.

Independently, the second author developed a new, inferential approach to erotetic logic, the logic of questions. In this approach arguments resulting in questions, with declarative sentences and/or other questions as premises, are analyzed, and validity of such arguments is defined.

In the present paper it is shown that all four kinds of erotetic argumentative steps occurring in the train of thought of explanation by specification are valid arguments in the sense of inferential erotetic logic. Hence, in view of the fact that the other argumentative steps were already shown to be valid, it may be concluded that the logical structure of explanation by specification can be as well-established as that of explanation by nomological subsumption. Moreover, explanation by specification provides some illustrations of the applicability of erotetic logic in everyday life and some empirical sciences.

Keywords

Biological Function Everyday Life Causal Factor Early Publication Logical Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belnap, N. D., and Th. B. Steel: 1976,The Logic of Questions and Answers, New Haven.Google Scholar
  2. Bromberger, S.: 1992,On What We Know We Don't Know. Explanation, Theory, Linguistics, and How Questions Shape Them, Chicago and Stanford.Google Scholar
  3. Harrah, D.: 1984, ‘The Logic of Questions’, in: D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, (eds.),Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Volume II:Extensions of Classical Logic, Dordrecht, pp. 715–764.Google Scholar
  4. Hintikka, J.: 1987, ‘The Interrogative Approach to Inquiry and Probabilistic Inference’,Erkenntnis 26, 429–442.Google Scholar
  5. Hintikka, J.: 1988, ‘What is the Logic of Experimental Inquiry’,Synthese 74, 173–190.Google Scholar
  6. Hintikka, J.: 1989, ‘The Role of Logic in Argumentation’,The Monist 72 (1), 3–24.Google Scholar
  7. Hintikka, J.: 1992, ‘The Interrogative Model of Inquiry as a General Theory of Argumentation’,Communication and Cognition,24 (1–2), pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
  8. Kubiński, T.: 1980,An Outline of the Logical Theory of Questions, Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. Kuipers, T. A. F.: 1985, ‘The Logic of Intentional Explanation’, in: J. Hintikka and F. Vandamme, (eds.),The Logic of Discourse and the Logic of Scientific Discovery, Proc. Conf. Gent, 1982,Communication and Cognition 18, (1/2), pp. 177–198.Google Scholar
  10. Kuipers, T. A. F.: 1986a, ‘The Logic of Functional Explanation in Biology’, in:The Tasks of Contemporary Philosophy, Proc. 10th Wittgenstein Symp. 1985, Wienna, pp. 110–114.Google Scholar
  11. Kuipers, T. A. F.: 1986b, ‘Explanation by Specification’,Logique et Analyse 116, 509–521.Google Scholar
  12. Kuipers, T. A. F.: (to appear), ‘Explanation by Intentional, Functional, and Causal Specification’,Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, volume dedicated to J. Kmita.Google Scholar
  13. Kuipers, T. A. F.: (in preparation), ‘Explanation by Specification’, Ch. VI ofStructures in Science, in preparation.Google Scholar
  14. Shoesmith, D. J., and T. J. Smiley: 1978,Multiple-conclusion Logic, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Wiśniewski, A.: 1985, ‘Propositional Logic and Erotetic Inferences’,Bulletin of the Section of Logic, Polish Academy of Sciences,14(2), pp. 72–78. (Correction,ibid. 15(1), 1986, p. 35).Google Scholar
  16. Wiśniewski, A.: 1989, ‘The Generating of Questions: A Study of Some Erotetic Aspects of Rationality’, in: L. Koj and A. Wiśniewski,Inquiries into the Generating and Proper Use of Questions, Lublin 1989, pp. 91–155.Google Scholar
  17. Wiśniewski, A.: 1990a, ‘Implied questions’,Manuscrito. Revista Internacional de Filosofia,13(2), pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
  18. Wiśniewski, A.: 1990b,Stawianie pytań: logika i racjonalność (The Posing of Questions: Logic and Rationality), Lublin.Google Scholar
  19. Wiśniewski, A.: 1991a, ‘Erotetic Arguments: A Preliminary Analysis’,Studia Logica 50(2), 261–274.Google Scholar
  20. Wiśniewski, A.: 1991b, ‘Multiple-Conclusion Consequence and Erotetic Implication’,Logic Group Bulletin, Warsaw Scientific Society, Supplement to No 1, September 1991, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
  21. Wiśniewski, A.: 1994, ‘Erotetic Implications’,Journal of Philosophical Logic,23(2), 173–195.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theo A. F. Kuipers
    • 1
  • Andrzej Wiśniewski
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Adam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations