Skip to main content

Deductive Chauvinism

Abstract

Any theory of explanation must account for the explanatory successes of statistical scientific theories. This should not be done by endorsing determinism. These considerations have been taken as sufficient ground for rejecting the demand on explanations to be deductive. The arguments for doing so, in Coffa (1974) and Salmon (1977, 1984, 1988), are, however, not persuasive. Deductivism is a viable position. Considering that doubts can be raised against the explanatory validity of probabilistic causal relations and the intuitive plausibility of deductivism, it is also a recommendable position, though elaboration is needed in accounting for some of the uses of statistical theories in explanations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  • Coffa, A.: [1974] 1993, ‘Hempel's Ambiguity’, Synthese 28, 141–63. Reprinted in D. H. Ruben (ed.): 1993, Explanation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 56–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N.: 1962, ‘The Stochastic Revolution and the Nature of Scientific Explanation’, Synthese 14, 200–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grünbaum, A. and W. Salmon (eds.): 1988, The Limitations of Deductivism, University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel. C. and P. Oppenheimer: [1948] 1965b, ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’, Philosophy of Science 15, 135–175. Reprinted in C. Hempel 1965b, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, The Free Press, New York, pp. 245–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C.: 1962, ‘Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation’, in H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 98–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C.: [1965a] 1965b, ‘Aspects of Scientific Explanation’, in C. Hempel 1965b, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, The Free Press, New York, pp. 331–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C.: 1988, ‘Provisos: A Problem Concerning the Inferential Structure of Scientific Theories’, in A. Grünbaum and W. Salmon (eds.), The Limitations of Deductivism, University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, pp. 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluck, S.: 1955, “Do Statistical Laws Have Explanatory Efficacy?', Philosophy of Science 22, 34–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1989, ‘Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World’, in P. Kitcher and W. Salmon (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XIII, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 410–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyborg: 1970, ‘Conjunctivitis’, in Swain (ed.), Induction, Acceptance and Rational Belief, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 55–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W.: [1977] 1998, ‘The Third Dogma of Empiricism’, in Butts and J. Hintikka (eds.), 1977, Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics, Kluwer, pp. 149–66. Reprinted in Causality Explanatio, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W.: 1984, Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W.: [1988] 1998, ‘Deductivism, Visited and Revisited’, in A. Grünbaum and W. Salmon (eds.), The Limitations of Deductivism, University of California Press, Berkeley/ Los Angeles/London, pp. 95–127. Reprinted in Causality and Explanation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 142–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W.: 1989, ‘Four Decades of Scientific Explanation’, in P. Kitcher and W. Salmon (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XIII, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

HÅLLSTEN, H. Deductive Chauvinism. Synthese 120, 49–59 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005206520112

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005206520112

Keywords

  • Reference Class
  • Statistical Explanation
  • Statistical Argument
  • Deductive Argument
  • Explanatory Success