Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–25 | Cite as

Inference, explanation, and asymmetry

  • Kareem Khalifa
  • Jared Millson
  • Mark Risjord
S.I.: Inferentialism

Abstract

Explanation is asymmetric: if A explains B, then B does not explain A. Traditionally, the asymmetry of explanation was thought to favor causal accounts of explanation over their rivals, such as those that take explanations to be inferences. In this paper, we develop a new inferential approach to explanation that outperforms causal approaches in accounting for the asymmetry of explanation.

Keywords

Explanation Inference Symmetry problem 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The author declares no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

  1. Baker, A. (2005). Are there genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena? Mind, 114(454), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bangu, S. (2016). Scientific explanation and understanding: Unificationism reconsidered. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 7(1), 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, E. C. (1992). Explanatory unification and the problem of asymmetry. Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 558–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batterman, R. W. (2002). The Devil in the details : Asymptotic reasoning in explanation, reduction and emergence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bokulich, A. (2011). How scientific models can explain. Synthese, 180(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandom, R. (2008). Between saying and doing: Towards an analytic pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandom, R. (2015). From empiricism to expressivism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bromberger, S. (1965). An approach to explanation. In R. Butler (Ed.), Studies in analytical philosophy (Vol. 2, pp. 72–105). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Bromberger, S. (1966). Why-questions. In R. Colodny (Ed.), Mind and cosmos: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy (pp. 86–111). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colyvan, M. (1998). Can the eleatic principle be justified? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 28(3), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman, M. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Huneman, P. (2010). Topological explanations and robustness in biological sciences. Synthese, 177(2), 213–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Irvine, E. (2015). Models, robustness, and non-causal explanation: A foray into cognitive science and biology. Synthese, 192(12), 3943–3959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (Vol. XIII, pp. 410–506). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kitcher, P., & Salmon, W. C. (1987). Van Fraassen on explanation. Journal of philosophy, 84(6), 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lange, M. (2009). Why do the laws explain why? Mind Association Occasional Series. In T. Handfield (Ed.), Dispositions and Causes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lange, M. (2016). Because without cause: Non-causal explanations in science and mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation. International library of philosophy and scientific method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Millson, J., Khalifa, K., & Risjord, M. (2018). Inferentialist expressivism for explanatory vocabulary. In O. Beran, V. Kolman, & M. Koreñ (Eds.), From rules to meanings: New essays on inferentialism (pp. 155–178). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell, S. D. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollock, J. (2015). Knowledge and justification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reutlinger, A. (2017). Explanation Beyond Causation? New directions in the philosophy of scientific explanation. Philosophy Compass, 12(2),Google Scholar
  25. Reutlinger, A., Schurz, G., & Hüttemann, A. (2015). Ceteris paribus laws. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  26. Rice, C. C. (2015). Moving beyond causes: Optimality models and scientific explanation. Noûs, 49(3), 589–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Risjord, M. (2005). Reasons, causes, and action explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 35(3), 294–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salmon, W. C. (1989). Four decades of scientific explanation. In P. Kitcher & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 3–219). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schurz, G. (1999). Explanation as unification. Synthese, 120(1), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schurz, G., & Lambert, K. (1994). Outline of a theory of scientific understanding. Synthese, 101(1), 65–120.Google Scholar
  31. Sellars, W. (1957). Counterfactuals, dispositions, and the causal modalities. In G. Maxwell (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. II, pp. 225–308). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. Skyrms, B. (1980). Causal necessity: A pragmatic investigation of the necessity of laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Stovall, P. (2015). Chemicals, organisms, and persons: Modal expressivism and a descriptive metaphysics of kinds. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  34. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Thomasson, A. L. (2007). Modal normativism and the methods of metaphysics. Philosophical Topics, 35(1/2), 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. New York: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Woodward, J. (2014). Scientific explanation. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2014 ed.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middlebury CollegeMiddleburyUSA
  2. 2.Agnes Scott CollegeDecaturUSA
  3. 3.Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations