Abstract
The topic of history-of-science explanation is first briefly introduced as a generally important one for the light it may shed on action theory, on the logic of discovery, and on philosophy's relations with historiography of science, intellectual history, and the sociology of knowledge. Then some problems and some conclusions are formulated by reference to some recent relevant literature: a critical analysis of Laudan's views on the role of normative evaluations in rational explanations occasions the result that one must make aconceptual distinction between evaluations and explanations of belief, and that there are at leastthree subclasses of the latter, rational, critical, and theoretical; I then discuss the problem of whether explanations of discoveries are self-evidencing and predictive by focusing on views of Hempel and Nickles, and I attempt a formalization of some aspects of the problem. Finally, a more systematic and concrete analysis is undertaken by using as an example the explanation of Galileo's rejection of space-proportionality, and it is argued that the historical explanation of scientific beliefs is a type of logical analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agassi, J.: 1963,Towards an Historiography of Science, Mouton, The Hague.
Cazré, P.: 1645,Physica demonstratio qua ... accelerationis motus ... determinantur, Paris.
Cohen, I. B.: 1956, ‘Galileo's Rejection of the Possibility of Velocity Changing Uniformly With Respect to Distance’,Isis 47, 231–35.
Currie, G.: 1980, ‘The Role of Normative Assumptions in Historical Explanations’,Philosophy of Science 47, 456–73.
Derden, J. K.: 1978, ‘Reasons, Causes, and Empathetic Understanding’, in P. D. Asquith and I. Hacking (eds.),PSA 1978 1, 176–85, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing.
Drake, S.: 1970,Galileo Studies, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Drake, S.: 1973, ‘Velocity and Eudoxian Proportion Theory’,Physis 15, 49–64.
Fay, B.: 1978, ‘Practical Reasoning, Rationality and the Explanation of Intentional Action’,Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 8, 77–101.
Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1972, ‘Vires Acquirit Eundo: The Passage Where Galileo Renounces Space-Acceleration and Causal Investigation’,Physis 14, 125–45.
Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1973a,History of Science as Explanation, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.
Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1973b, ‘Galileo's Space-Proportionality Argument: A Role for Logic in Historiography’,Physis 15, 65–72.
Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1975, ‘Cause, Explanation, and Understanding in Science: Galileo's Case’,The Review of Metaphysics 29, 117–28.
Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1977, ‘Logic and Rhetoric in Lavoisier's Sealed Note: Toward a Rhetoric of Science’,Philosophy and Rhetoric 10, 111–22.
Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1980a,Galileo and the Art of Reasoning: Rhetorical Foundations of Logic and Scientific Method, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1980b, ‘Scientific Discoveries as Growth of Understanding: The Case of Newton's Gravitation’, in T. Nickles (ed.),Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, pp. 235–55, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1980c, ‘The Concept of Judgment and Huygens' Theory of Gravity’,Epistemologia 3, 185–218.
Forrester, M.: 1976, ‘Practical Reasoning and Historical Inquiry’,History and Theory 15, 133–40.
Galilei, G.: 1974,Two New Sciences, in S. Drake (trans.), University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Hall, A. R.: 1958, ‘Galileo's Fallacy’,Isis 49, 342–46.
Hempel, C.: 1965,Aspects of Scientific Explanation, Free Press, New York.
Koyré, A.: 1966,Etudes galiléennes, Hermann, Paris, Rpt. of 1939 edition.
Laudan, L.: 1977,Progress and Its Problems, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Laudan, L.: 1980, ‘Why Was the Logic of Discovery Abandoned?’, in T. Nickles (ed.),Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, pp. 173–83. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Mach, E.: 1960,The Science of Mechanics, in T. J. McCormack (trans.), Open Court, La Salle, IL.
MacIntyre, A. C.: 1971,Against the Self-image of the Age, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
Mates, B.: 1972,Elementary Logic, second edition, Oxford University Press, New York.
McMullin, E.: 1979, ‘Discussion Review: Laudan's Progress and Its Problems’,Philosophy of Science 46, 623–44.
Nickles, T.: 1977, ‘On the Independence of Singular Causal Explanation in Social Science: Archaeology’,Philosophy of the Social Sciences 7, 163–87.
Nickles, T.: 1979, ‘Essay-review of Finocchiaro'sHistory of Science as Explanation’,Erkenntnis 14, 93–102.
Norris, S. E.: 1975, ‘The Intelligibility of Practical Reasoning’,American Philosophical Quarterly 12, 77–84.
Popper, K.: 1959,The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Harper, New York.
Scriven, M.: 1959, ‘Truisms as the Grounds for Historical Explanations’, in P. Gardiner (ed.),Theories of History, pp. 468–89, Free Press, New York.
Yolton, J. W.: 1973, ‘Action Theory as the Foundation for the Sciences of Man’,Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3, 81–90.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Finocchiaro, M.A. Aspects of the logic of history-of-science explanation. Synthese 62, 429–454 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869412
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869412