David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1972:337 - 347 (1972)
The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic appraisal of the covering law and statistical relevance theories of statistical explanation advanced by Carl G. Hempel and by Wesley C. Salmon, respectively. The analysis is intended to show that the difference between these accounts is inprinciple analogous to the distinction between truth and confirmation, where Hempel's analysis applies to what is taken to be the case and Salmon's analysis applies to what is the case. Specifically, it is argued (a) that statistical explanations exhibit the nomic expectability of their explanandum events, which in some cases may be strong but in other cases will not be; (b) that the statistical relevance criterion is more fundamental than the requirement of maximal specificity and should therefore displace it; and, (c) that if statistical explanations are to be envisioned as inductive arguments at all, then only in a qualified sense since, in particular, the requirement of high inductive probability between explanans and explanandum must be abandoned.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Wesley C. Salmon (1977). Hempel's Conception of Inductive Inference in Inductive-Statistical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 44 (2):179-185.
Bruce Glymour (1998). Contrastive, Non-Probabilistic Statistical Explanations. Philosophy of Science 65 (3):448-471.
Lorenz Kruger (1976). Are Statistical Explanations Possible? Philosophy of Science 43 (1):129-146.
Wesley C. Salmon (1974). Comments on 'Hempel's Ambiguity' by J. Alberto Coffa. Synthese 28 (2):165 - 169.
John L. King (1976). Statistical Relevance and Explanatory Classification. Philosophical Studies 30 (5):313 - 321.
Wesley C. Salmon (1971). Statistical Explanation & Statistical Relevance. [Pittsburgh]University of Pittsburgh Press.
Lawrence Sklar (1973). Statistical Explanation and Ergodic Theory. Philosophy of Science 40 (2):194-212.
Hugh Lehman (1972). Statistical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 39 (4):500-506.
Colin Howson (1988). On a Recent Argument for the Impossibility of a Statistical Explanation of Single Events, and a Defence of a Modified Form of Hempel's Theory of Statistical Explanation. Erkenntnis 29 (1):113 - 124.
Carl G. Hempel, Donald Davidson & Nicholas Rescher (eds.) (1970). Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. Dordrecht,D. Reidel.
John Meixner (1979). Homogeneity and Explanatory Depth. Philosophy of Science 46 (3):366-381.
Carl G. Hempel (1968). Maximal Specificity and Lawlikeness in Probabilistic Explanation. Philosophy of Science 35 (2):116-133.
Joseph F. Hanna (1978). On Transmitted Information as a Measure of Explanatory Power. Philosophy of Science 45 (4):531-562.
Gurol Irzik & Eric Meyer (1987). Causal Modeling: New Directions for Statistical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 54 (4):495-514.
Henrik Hållsten (1999). Deductive Chauvinism. Synthese 120 (1):49-59.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads2 ( #337,488 of 1,096,735 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #273,068 of 1,096,735 )
How can I increase my downloads?