David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 62 (3):429 - 454 (1985)
The topic of history-of-science explanation is first briefly introduced as a generally important one for the light it may shed on action theory, on the logic of discovery, and on philosophy''s relations with historiography of science, intellectual history, and the sociology of knowledge. Then some problems and some conclusions are formulated by reference to some recent relevant literature: a critical analysis of Laudan''s views on the role of normative evaluations in rational explanations occasions the result that one must make aconceptual distinction between evaluations and explanations of belief, and that there are at leastthree subclasses of the latter, rational, critical, and theoretical; I then discuss the problem of whether explanations of discoveries are self-evidencing and predictive by focusing on views of Hempel and Nickles, and I attempt a formalization of some aspects of the problem. Finally, a more systematic and concrete analysis is undertaken by using as an example the explanation of Galileo''s rejection of space-proportionality, and it is argued that the historical explanation of scientific beliefs is a type of logical analysis.
|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
Gregory Currie (1980). The Role of Normative Assumptions in Historical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 47 (3):456-473.
Brian Fay (1978). Practical Reasoning, Rationality and the Explanation of Intentional Action. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 8 (1):77-101.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1975). Cause, Explanation, and Understanding in Science: Galileo's Case. Review of Metaphysics 29 (1):117 - 128.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1977). Logic and Rhetoric in Lavoisier's Sealed Note: Toward a Rhetoric of Science. Philosophy and Rhetoric 10 (2):111 - 122.
Carl Gustav Hempel (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. In Aspects of Scientific Explanation, and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Free Press. 504.
Citations of this work BETA
Thomas Nickles (1989). Heuristic Appraisal: A Proposal. Social Epistemology 3 (3):175 – 188.
Similar books and articles
Raymond Martin (1981). Beyond Positivism: A Research Program for Philosophy of History. Philosophy of Science 48 (1):112-121.
Björn Eriksson (2005). Understanding Narrative Explanation. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):317-344.
Thomas Nickles (1971). Covering Law Explanation. Philosophy of Science 38 (4):542-561.
M. C. W. Janssen & Y. -H. Tan (1991). Why Friedman's Non-Monotonic Reasoning Defies Hempel's Covering Law Model. Synthese 86 (2):255 - 284.
Paul A. Roth (2008). Varieties and Vagaries of Historical Explanation. Journal of the Philosophy of History 2 (2):214-226.
Joseph C. Pitt (ed.) (1988). Theories of Explanation. Oxford University Press.
James J. Leach (1968). The Logic of the Situation. Philosophy of Science 35 (3):258-273.
Michael Martin (1968). Situational Logic and Covering Law Explanations in History. Inquiry 11 (1-4):388 – 399.
Arno Wouters (1995). Viability Explanation. Biology and Philosophy 10 (4):435-457.
W. A. Suchting (1967). Deductive Explanation and Prediction Revisited. Philosophy of Science 34 (1):41-52.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #314,198 of 1,168,875 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?