Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 8, pp 1985–2003 | Cite as

Grounding and the explanatory role of generalizations

  • Stefan RoskiEmail author


According to Hempel’s (Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays. The Free Press, New York, 1965) influential theory of explanation, explaining why some a is G consists in showing that the truth that a is G follows from a law-like generalization to the effect that all Fs are G together with the initial condition that a is F. While Hempel’s overall account is now widely considered to be deeply flawed, the idea that some generalizations play the explanatory role that the account predicts is still often endorsed by contemporary philosophers of science. This idea, however, conflicts with widely shared views in metaphysics according to which the generalization that all Fs are G is partially explained by the fact that a is G. I discuss two solutions to this conflict that have been proposed recently, argue that they are unsatisfactory, and offer an alternative.


Grounding Exlpanation Generalization Laws 


  1. Armstrong, D. (1983). What is a law of nature?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audi, P. (2012). Grounding: Toward a theory of the in-virtue-of relation. The Journal of Philosophy, 109(12), 685–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bliss, R., & Trogdon, K. (2014). Metaphysical grounding. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2016 edition.
  4. Correia, F. (2014). Logical grounds. Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(1), 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Correia, F., & Schnieder, B. (2012). Grounding: An opinionated introduction. In B. Schnieder & F. Correia (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding (pp. 1–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craver, C. (2014). The ontic account of scientific explanation. In M. I. Kaiser, O. Scholz, D. Plenge, & A. Huettemann (Eds.), Explanation in the special sciences: The case of biology and history (pp. 27–52). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dretske, F. (1977). Laws of nature. Philosophy of Science, 44(2), 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fine, K. (2001). The question of realism. Philosophers’ Imprint, 1(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  9. Fine, K. (2010). Some puzzles of ground. Notre Dame Journal of Symbolic Logic, 51(1), 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fine, K. (2012). A guide to ground. In F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding (pp. 37–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gijsbers, V. (2013). Understanding, explanation, and unification. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(3), 516–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Studies in the logic of explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays (pp. 245–296). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hicks, M. T., & van Elswyk, P. (2015). Humean laws and scientific explanation. Philosophical Studies, 173, 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoeltje, M., Steinberg, A., & Schnieder, B. (2013). Explanation by induction. Synthese, 190(3), 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hüttemann, A. (2015). Physicalism and the part-whole relation. In T. Bigaj & C. Wütherich (Eds.), Metaphysics in contemporary physics (pp. 323–344). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim, J. (1994). Explanatory knowledge and metaphysical dependence. Philosophical Issues, 5, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 410–505). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lange, M. (2000). Natural laws in scientific practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lange, M. (2013). Grounding, scientific explanation, and humean laws. Philosophical Studies, 164(1), 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lange, M. (2016). Transitivity, self-explanation, and the explanatory circularity argument against humean accounts of natural law. Synthese, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1274-y.
  21. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. (1986a). Causal explanation. In D. Lewis (Ed.), Philosophical papers (Vol. II, pp. 214–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. (1986b). Introduction. In D. Lewis (Ed.), Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. xi–xvii). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, D. (1994). Humean supervenience debugged. Mind, 103(412), 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lipton, P. (2009). Understanding without explanation. In H. W. de Regt, S. Leonelli, & K. Eigner (Eds.), Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 43–63). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loewer, B. (2012). Two accounts of laws and time. Philosophical Studies, 160(1), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall, D. (2015). Humean laws and explanation. Philosophical Studies, 172(12), 3145–3165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maudlin, T. (2007). The metaphysics within physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, E. (2015). Humean scientific explanation. Philosophical Studies, 172(5), 1311–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newton-Smith, W. H. (2000). Explanation. A companion to the philosophy of science, chap 19 (pp. 127–133). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Raven, M. (2013). In defence of ground. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90(4), 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruben, D. H. (2012). Explaining explanation (updated and extended) (2nd ed.). Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Salmon, W. (1989). Four decades of scientific explanation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schaffer, J. (2016). Grounding in the image of causation. Philosophical Studies, 173(1), 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schnieder, B. (2006). Truthmaking without truthmakers. Synthese, 152, 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schnieder, B. (2011). A logic for ‘because’. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4, 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schnieder, B. (2015). The asymmetry of ‘because’. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 91, 175–208.Google Scholar
  38. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trogdon, K. (2013). An introduction to grounding. In M. Hoeltje, B. Schnieder, & A. Steinbgerg (Eds.), Varieties of dependence (pp. 97–122). Munich: Philosophia.Google Scholar
  40. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations