Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T00:52:38.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deductive Explanation and Prediction Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

W. A. Suchting
W. A. Suchting*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper has two main aims. The first is to reformulate Hempel's version of the thesis of the symmetry of explanation and prediction, as regards the deductive covering-law model, so as to generalise it and make it no longer subject to some of the criticisms which have been directed at it (Section II). The second aim is to consider, with special critical reference to Hempel's recent treatment in Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York and London, 1965), some central criticisms of both the constituent parts of the above symmetry thesis, viz. that adequate explanations are potentially predictive (Section III), and that adequate predictive arguments are potentially explanatory (Section IV).

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 1967 , pp. 41 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Brown, R., Explanation in the Social Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.Google Scholar
[2] Bunge, M., “Phenomenological Theories” in The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Karl Popper. Edited by M. Bunge. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1964.Google Scholar
[3] Dray, W. H., Philosophy of History. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964.Google Scholar
[4] Feyerabend, P. K., “Review” of Hanson (6) Philosophical Review, 73 (1964), pp. 264–66.Google Scholar
[5] Grünbaum, A., Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. New York: A. Knopf, 1964.Google Scholar
[6] Hanson, N. R., The Concept of the Positron. Cambridge: The University Press, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Hempel, C. G., “Deductive-Nomological versus Statistical Explanation” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III. Edited by H. Feigl and G. Maxwell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[8] Hempel, C. G., “Explanation and Prediction by Covering Laws” Philosophy of Science. The Delaware Seminar. Vol. I: 1960–62. Edited by B. Baumrin. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963.Google Scholar
[9] Hempel, C. G., “Reasons and Covering Laws in Historical Explanation” Philosophy and History. A Symposium. Edited by S. Hook. New York: New York University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
[10] Hempel, C. G., Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press, and London: Collier-Macmillan, 1965.Google Scholar
[11] Kim, J., “Inference, Explanation, and Prediction” Journal of Philosophy, 61 (1964), pp. 360–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Mill, J. S., A System of Logic (1843, 8th ed., 1872) London: Longmans, n.d.Google Scholar
[13] Nagel, E., The Structure of Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Popper, K. R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.Google Scholar
[15] Popper, K. R., The Poverty of Historicism (1944–45), revised edition, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.Google Scholar
[16] Popper, K. R., The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Vol. II, 4th ed., London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962.Google Scholar
[17] Scriven, M., “The Structure of Science” Review of Metaphysics, 17 (1964), pp. 403–24.Google Scholar