WHAT TO ASK OF AN EXPLANATION-THEORY

  • HENRIK HÅLLSTEN
Part of the BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE book series (BSPS, volume 252)

Abstract

In the following I will discuss some of the issues that an explanation-theory should address. Though it is an attempt to stay away from the question as to which particular theory that is the correct one, I will argue for and against different alternatives in ways of addressing these issues. Partly, what I will try to do is start listing some of the issues over which we, as philosophers in the theory of explanation, should make up our minds. In some cases this making up of minds will consist of agreeing on terminology and in some cases it deals with deeper questions. First I would like to clear up some terminological issues. I will use the following terms in the following way:

Keywords

Penicillin Sine Defend Clarification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Coffa, A. (1974). Hempel’s Ambiguity. Synthese 28: 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dowe, P. (1994). Wesley Salmon’s Process Theory of Causality and the Conserved Quantity Theory. Philosophy of Science 59: 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dummett, M. (1991). The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fogelin, R. (1994). Pyrrhonian Reflections on Knowledge and Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Garfinkel, A. (1981). Forms of Explanation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gettier, E. (1963). Is Justified Belief Knowledge? Analysis 23(6): 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gjelsvik, O. (present volume). Causal Explanation Provides Knowledge Why.Google Scholar
  9. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Humphreys, P. (1989). The Chances of Explanation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hållsten, H. (2001). Explanation and Deduction; a defence of deductive chauvinism. Stockholm: Almqvist&Wiksell.Google Scholar
  12. Hållsten, H. (2004). The Explanatory Virtues of Probabilistic Causal Laws. In Faye, Needham, Scheffler and Urchs (eds.): Nature’s Principles. Springer: 157–170.Google Scholar
  13. Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science XIII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 410–508.Google Scholar
  14. Kitcher, P. and W. Salmon. (1987). Van Fraassen on Explanation. Journal of Philosophy 84: 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Railton, P. (1980). Explaining Explanation: A Realist Account of Scientific Explanation and Understanding. Ph.D.-thesis, University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
  16. Railton, P. (1990). Taking Physical Probability Seriously. In Salmon (ed.): The Philosophy of Logical Mechanism: 251–283.Google Scholar
  17. Salmon, W. (1989). Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science XIII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 3–219.Google Scholar
  18. Salmon, W. (1994). Causality Without Counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science 61: 297–312.Google Scholar
  19. Salmon, W. (1998). Causality and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Schweder, R. (present volume). Some Observations on Unificationism and Probabilistic Explanation.Google Scholar
  21. Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ylikoski, P. (2001). Understanding Interests and Causal Explanation. Helsinki: http://ethesis.helsinki.fi.Google Scholar
  23. Ylikoski, P. (present volume). The Idea of Contrastive Explanation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • HENRIK HÅLLSTEN

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations