AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 167–174 | Cite as

Explanation in philosophy and the limits of precision

Original Article

Abstract

A look at the beginning of philosophy and a consideration of contemporary Anglo-American philosophy show that precision of presentation is a commendable and widely pursued goal. There is a trade-off, however, between precision and richness of presentation. As precision gets sharpened, impoverishment of subject matter advances, often without recognition of the price that is paid for precision. A precise way of illustrating the trade-off in question is to take a precise meteorological model, consider how little it tells us about the weather, enrich the model, and see how precision loses its edge. The works of Heidegger and Rawls are mentioned as exemplars of balance between precision and richness.

Keywords

Explanation Precision Impoverishment Deduction Models 

References

  1. Bynum TW, Moor J (eds) (1998) The digital phoenix: how computers are changing philosophy. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnap R (1998) Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Meiner (our translation), HamburgMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Cornman J (1971) Materialism and sensations. Yale, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  4. Fink E (1957) Operative begriffe in Husserlsphänomenologie, ZeitschriftfürPhilosophischeForschung 11(3):321–337Google Scholar
  5. Foot P (2002) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. In: Applied ethics: critical concepts in philosophy, vol 2, pp 187Google Scholar
  6. Frigg R Hartmann S (2012) Models in science, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), ed. Eward N. Zalta. URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/
  7. Goldman A (1999) Knowledge in a social world. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heidegger M (1994) Bremer und Freiburger Vorträge. Klostermann, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  9. Hempel Carl G (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hendricks V, Symons J (eds) (2005) Formal Philosophy. n.p. Automatic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hirsch ED (1987) Cultural literacy: what every American needs to know. Houghton, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Horwich P (2013) Was Wittgenstein RIGHT? The New York Times (March 3, 2013). URL: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/was-wittgenstein-right/
  13. Kitcher P (1988) Explanatory unification. In: Pitt Joseph C (ed) Theories of explanation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Kitcher P (2001) Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitcher P (2012a) Seeing is unbelieving, The New York Times book review (March 23, 2012)Google Scholar
  16. Kitcher P (2012b) The lure of the peak. The New Repub CCXLIII:30–35Google Scholar
  17. Marzano R (2004) Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Heinle ELT, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  18. Nadelhoffer T (2005) The trolley problem revisited. in experimental philosophy, http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2005/09/the_trolley_pro.html
  19. Newton I (1684) The Principia, tr. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman. Berkeley: CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Ransom G (2011) Larry summers on scientism, mathematical tractability and the cognitive failure of modern macroeconomics, Taking hayek seriously. (April 10, 2011). http://hayekcenter.org/?p=4705
  21. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Sandel M (2009) Justice. Farrar, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. See Copi I (1967) Symbolic logic, 3rd edn. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Silver N (2012) The signal and the noise. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Welch J (1986) Fools crow. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams B (2000) Philosophy as a humanistic discipline. Philosophy LXXV:480Google Scholar
  27. Woodward J (2011) Scientific explanation, Edward N. Zalta (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/
  28. Wittgenstein L (1963) TractatusLogico-Philosophicus, tr. D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness. London: Routledge HumanitiesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeosciencesUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations