Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zur verteidigung einiger hempelscher thesen gegen kritiken stegmüllers

  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The aim of this paper is to defend some of C. G. Hempel's basic theses concerning the logic of explanation and prediction against criticisms recently made by W. Stegmüller. It is argued (very concisely) that

  1. (I)

    these is no need for essentially pragmatic conditions in DN-arguments;

  2. (II)

    only the structural identity sub-thesis “Every adequate prediction is ... an adequate explanation” can be held instead of the one Hempel has in mind;

  3. (III)

    the notion of the ambiguity of probabilistic explanations should be reformulated;

  4. (IV)

    there is no need for more than one knowledge situation;

  5. (V)

    systematizations with low inductive probability do not give rational predictions or explanations of singular events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Gärdenfors, P.: 1980, A Pragmatic Approach to Explanations, Philosophy of Science 47, 405–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G.: 1977, Aspekte wissenschaftlicher Erklärung, De Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küttner, M.: 1976, Ein verbesserter deduktiv-nomologischer Erklärungsbegriff, Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 7 274–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küttner, M.: 1983, Logical Conditions of D-N Predictions, Structural Identity Thesis, and Blau's Example, 7th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Abstracts Section 6, Salzburg, pp. 118–121.

  • Küttner, M.: 1983, Glaube, Wissen und die Pragmatik des Erklärens: Zur Kritik des Ansatzes von Gärdenfors und Stegmüller, Proceedings of the 8th International Wittgenstein Symposium, D. Reidel, Dordrecht (erscheint demnächst).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, H.: 1972, Erklärung-Prognose-Planung, Rombach, Freiburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurz, G.: 1983, Wissenschaftliche Erklärung, Diss., Graz.

  • Stegmüller, W.: 1983, Erklärung-Begründung-Kausalität, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaft Fachrichtung Wissenschaftstheorie, Freie Universität Berlin, Garystrasse 6, D-1000, Berlin 33, B.R.D.

    Michael Küttner

Authors
  1. Michael Küttner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Carl G. Hempel danke ich sehr für die kürzliche Diskussion einiger Grundgedanken zu den Abschnitten 4 und 7. Fehler und Mißverständnisse gehen aber allein zu meinen Lasten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Küttner, M. Zur verteidigung einiger hempelscher thesen gegen kritiken stegmüllers. Erkenntnis 22, 475–484 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00269978

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00269978

Search

Navigation