David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 44 (2):186-198 (1977)
Hempel's high probability requirement asserts that any rationally acceptable answer to the question 'Why did event X occur?' must offer information which shows that X was to be expected at least with reasonable probability. Salmon rejected this requirement in his S-R model. This led to a series of paradoxical consequences, such as the assertion that an explanation of an event can both lower its probability and make it arbitrarily low, and the assertion that the explanation of an outcome would have qualified as an explanation of its non-occurrence as well. We argue that if inductive explanations are to be seen as generalizations of the causal-deterministic model, or if they are to be seen as satisfying the requirement--fulfilled by the D-N model--that explanations ought to identify certain features of the universe that are nomically responsible for the explanadum event, then the high probability requirement seems to be unacceptable. If this is so, a realistically inspired theory of inductive explanation will be committed to the paradoxes that follow from Salmon's model
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Gualtiero Piccinini (2010). The Mind as Neural Software? Understanding Functionalism, Computationalism, and Computational Functionalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (2):269-311.
Isabelle Drouet & Francesca Merlin (2015). The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness and the Propensity Interpretation of Probability. Erkenntnis 80 (3):457-468.
Robert Audi (1981). Inductive-Nomological Explanations and Psychological Laws. Theory and Decision 13 (3):229-249.
Raimo Tuomela (1981). Inductive Explanation. Synthese 48 (2):257 - 294.
J. Alberto Coffa (1976). Reply to Harnatt. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 7 (2):357-358.
Similar books and articles
Peter Railton (1978). A Deductive-Nomological Model of Probabilistic Explanation. Philosophy of Science 45 (2):206-226.
Joseph F. Hanna (1982). Probabilistic Explanation and Probabilistic Causality. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:181 - 193.
John Pollock (2011). Reasoning Defeasibly About Probabilities. Synthese 181 (2):317 - 352.
James H. Fetzer (1972). Statistical Explanations. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1972:337 - 347.
Stanley Paluch (1968). The Covering Law Model of Historical Explanation. Inquiry 11 (1-4):368 – 387.
Wesley C. Salmon (1974). Comments on 'Hempel's Ambiguity' by J. Alberto Coffa. Synthese 28 (2):165 - 169.
Joseph F. Hanna (1986). Objective Homogeneity Relativized. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:422 - 431.
Wesley C. Salmon (1977). Hempel's Conception of Inductive Inference in Inductive-Statistical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 44 (2):179-185.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #154,795 of 1,911,657 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,010 of 1,911,657 )
How can I increase my downloads?