Abstract
In this article we criticize two recent articles that examinethe relation between explanation and unification. Halonen and Hintikka (1999), on the one hand,claim that no unification is explanation. Schurz (1999), on the other hand, claims that all explanationis unification. We give counterexamples to both claims. We propose a pluralistic approach to the problem:explanation sometimes consists in unification, but in other cases different kinds of explanation(e.g., causal explanation) are required; and none of these kinds is more fundamental.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Clarke, R.: 1996, ‘The Distribution of Deviance and Exceeding the Speed Limit', The British Journal of Criminology 36, 169–181.
Halonen, I. and J. Hintikka: 1999, ‘Unification - It's Magnificent but is it Explanation?', Synthese 120, 27–47.
Kitcher, P.: 1989, ‘Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World', in P. Kitcher and W. Salmon (eds), Scientific Explanation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 410–505.
Schurz, G.: 1999, ‘Explanation as Unification', Synthese 120, 94–114.
Weber, E.: 1999, ‘Unification: What is it, How do we Reach it and Why do we Want it?', Synthese 118, 479–499.
Weber, E. and M. Van Dyck: 200+, ‘Nomic Explanation is a Species of it's own', Foundations of Science (in print).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weber, E., Van Dyck, M. Unification And Explanation. Synthese 131, 145–154 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015005529380
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015005529380