Examples of Descriptions and Evaluations of Explanatory Practices

Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

The examples we gave in Chap. 3 are brief and not always realistic. In this chapter we present elaborate and realistic examples of how the toolbox of Chap. 3 can be used for analysing explanatory practices.

Keywords

Default Rule Magnetic Compass Explanatory Practice Epistemic Interest Cuban Missile Crisis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allison G (1971) Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Little Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison G, Zelikow P (1999) Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis, 2nd edn. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Broad W (1985) Star warriors. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. De Langhe R, Weber E, Van Bouwel J (2007) A pragmatist approach to the plurality of explanations in international relations Theory. In: Proceedings of the 6th Pan-European conference on international relations Conference paper archive of SGIR, Turin.(http://www.sgir.eu/conference-paper-archive/)
  5. De Vreese L (2008) Causal (mis)understanding and the search for scientific explanations: a case study from the history of medicine. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 39:14–24Google Scholar
  6. De Vreese L, Weber E, Van Bouwel J (2010) Explanatory pluralism in the medical sciences: theory and practice. Theor Med Bioeth 31:371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Winter J (2010) Explanations in software engineering: the pragmatic point of view. Mind Mach 20:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewey J (1938) Logic: the theory of inquiry. Henry Holt & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Elster J (1983) Explaining technical change. A case study in the philosophy of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Feynman R (1986) Appendix F- Personal Observations of the Reliability of the Shuttle (Reprinted in Feynman 1988). http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm. Accessed 30 August 2012
  11. Feynman R (1988) What do you care what other people think? W. W. Norton, New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleissner G, Holtkamp-Rötzler E, Hanzlik M, Winklhofer M, Fleissner G, Petersen N, Wiltschko W (2003) Ultrastructural analysis of a putative magneto receptor in the beak of homing pigeons. J Comp Neurol 458:350–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gervais R (forthcoming), Explaining capacities: assessing the explanatory power of models in the cognitive sciences. In: Meheus J, Weber E, Wouters D (eds) Logic, reasoning and rationality. Springer, Dordrecht (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Gervais R, Weber E (2011) The covering law model applied to dynamical cognitive science: a comment on Joel Walmsley. Mind Mach 21:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gervais R, Weber E (2013) Plausibility versus richness in mechanistic models. Philos Psycho 26:139–152Google Scholar
  16. Gervais R, Weber E (ms.) The Role of DN explanations in biologyGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene N (2012a) Challenger disaster—a NASA tragedy. Part 1: The launch and disaster. In About.Com (Part of the New York Times Company). http://space.about.com/cs/challenger/a/challenger.htm. Accessed 30 August 2012
  18. Greene N (2012b) Space shuttle challenger disaster—a NASA tragedy. Part 2: The space shuttle challenger aftermath. In About.Com (Part of the New York Times Company). http://space.about.com/cs/challenger/a/challenger_2.htm. Accessed 30 August 2012
  19. Haken H, Kelso JAS, Bunz H (1985) A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biol Cybern 51:347–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hempel C, Oppenheim P (1948) Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos Sci 15:135–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keeton W, Gould J (1986) Biological science, 4th edn. W. W. Norton & Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Lackey D (1994) Military funds, moral demands: personal responsibilities of the individual scientist. In: Erwin E, Sidney S, Kleimann L (eds) Ethical issues in scientific research. Garland Publishing, New York, pp 397–409Google Scholar
  23. Merton R (1957) Social theory and social structure. The Free Press, GlencoeGoogle Scholar
  24. Thelen E, Schöner G, Scheier C, Smith LB (2001) The dynamics of embodiment: a field theory of infait perseverative reaching. Behav Brain Sci 24:1–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (1986). Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm. Accessed 30 August 2012
  26. Treiber CD, Salzer MC, Riegler J, Edelman N, Sugar C, Breuss M, Pichler P, Cadiou H, Saunders M, Lythgoe M, Shaw J, Keays DA (2012) Clusters of iron-rich cells in the upper beak of pigeons are macrophages not magnetosensitive neurons. Nature 484:367–370Google Scholar
  27. Van Bouwel J, Weber E (2002) Remote causes, bad explanations? J Theory Soc Behav 32(2002):437–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Bouwel J, Weber E (2008a) De-ontologizing the debate on social explanations: a pragmatic approach based on epistemic interests. Hum Stud 31:423–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Bouwel J, Weber E (2008b) A pragmatic defense of non-relativistic explanatory pluralism in history and social science. Hist Theory 47:168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Bouwel J, Weber E, De Vreese L (2011) Indispensability arguments in favour of reductive explanations. J Gen Philos Sci 42:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vanderbeeken R, Weber E (2002) Dispositional explanations of behavior. Behav Philos 30:43–59Google Scholar
  32. Walmsley J (2008) Explanation in dynamical cognitive science. Mind Mach 18:331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weber E, Van Bouwel J (2002) Symposium on explanations and social ontology 3: can we dispense with structural explanations of social facts? Econ Philos 18:261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weber E, Vanderbeeken R (2005) The functions of intentional explanations of actions. Behav Philos 33:1–16Google Scholar
  35. Weber E, Verhoeven L (2002) Explanatory proofs in mathematics. Logique Anal 179–180:299–307Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceGhent University (UGent)GhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations