Studia Logica

, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 331–341 | Cite as

Explication Defended

  • Patrick MaherEmail author


How can formal methods be applied to philosophical problems that involve informal concepts of ordinary language? Carnap answered this question by describing a methodology that he called “explication." Strawson objected that explication changes the subject and does not address the original philosophical problem; this paper shows that Carnap’s response to that objection was inadequate and offers a better response. More recent criticisms of explication by Boniolo and Eagle are shown to rest on misunderstandings of the nature of explication. It is concluded that explication is an appropriate methodology for formal philosophy.


explication formal methods formal philosophy Carnap 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boniolo, Giovanni (2003). ‘Kant’s explication and Carnap’s explication: The Redde Rationem’. International Philosophical Quarterly 43(3): 289–298Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnap, Rudolf, Logical Foundations of Probability, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1950. Second edition 1962.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carnap, Rudolf (1956) ‘The methodological character of theoretical concepts’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1: 38–76Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carnap, Rudolf, ‘Replies and systematic expositions’, in Schilpp [12], pp. 859–1013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eagle, Antony (2004) ‘Twenty-one arguments against propensity analyses of probability’. Erkenntnis 60: 371–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Good I.J. (1968) ‘The white shoe qua herring is pink’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19: 156–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hempel, Carl G., ‘Studies in the logic of confirmation’, Mind, 54 (1945), 1–26 and 97–121. Reprinted with some changes in Aspects of Scientific Explanation, Carl G. Hempel. New York: The Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maher, Patrick, ‘Probability captures the logic of scientific confirmation’, in Christopher R. Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, Blackwell, Oxford, 2004, pp. 69–93.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nicod, Jean, Le Probl‘eme Logique de l’Induction, Alcan, Paris, 1923. Page references are to the English translation in [10].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nicod, Jean, Geometry and Induction, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1970. English translation of works originally published in French in 1923 and 1924.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quine, Willard Van Orman (1960). Word and Object. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1963.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strawson, P. F., ‘Carnap’s views on constructed systems versus natural languages in analytic philosophy’, in Schilpp [12], pp. 503–518.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations