Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T02:37:21.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Do Scientific Explanations Explain?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Joyce Kinoshita
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

My title question as it stands is ambiguous, and is in want of some initial clarification. Does the question ask how the explanandum is logically related to the explanans? Or does it ask about the details of the dynamics of the explanation speech-act? Or does it ask how the linguistic ambiguities of explanation questions and answers should properly be unpacked? Or does it ask yet some other question?

The ways of studying explanation, like the ways of understanding the world, are many and varied. By this, I mean more than that the phenomenon of explanation can be studied as it arises in the different disciplines of biology, physics, the social sciences, and the like. Rather, I mean that there are varied disciplines of explanation-study itself. For example, the Hempelian tradition has largely focused on the logic of explanation, and others have focused on the linguistic, psychological, social, and epistemological angles of explanation. Thus, it is not appropriate for me to begin by arguing that explanation is a set of logically related statements or a speech-act (just as one does not begin by arguing ‘the world’ is a sociological or physical phenomenon), but appropriate instead to begin by specifying the explanatory discipline within which I ask my title question.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 27 , March 1990 , pp. 297 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 1990

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

Friedman, M. 1974. ‘Explanation and Scientific Understanding’, Journal of Philosophy 71, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. 1981. ‘Lakatos's Philosophy of Science’, in Scientific Revolutions Hacking, I. (ed.), (Oxford University Press), 128–43.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1959. ‘The Logic of Functional Analysis’, repr. in Hempel (1965b), 297–330.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965a. ‘Aspects of Scientific Explanation’, in Hempel (1965b), 331–496.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965b. Aspects ofScientific Explanation (New York: The Free Press).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P. 1948. ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’, repr. with Postscript (1964) in Hempel (1965b), 245–95.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1981. ‘Explanatory Unification’, Philosophy of Science 48, 507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, J. M. E. 1974. ‘Aristotle on Adequate Explanation’, Synthese 28, 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, J. M. E. 1975. ‘Aitiai as Generative Factor in Aristotle's Philosophy’, Dialogue 14, 622–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 1981. History, Truth and Reason (Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. 1984. Reason and the Search for Knowldge (Dordrecht: D. Reidel).Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1980. The Scientific Image (Cambridge: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar