David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (2):273-301 (2008)
The paper tries to provide an alternative to Hempel’s approach to scientific laws and scientific explanation as given in his D-N model. It starts with a brief exposition of the main characteristics of Hempel’s approach to deductive explanations based on universal scientific laws and analyzes the problems and paradoxes inherent in this approach. By way of solution, it analyzes the scientific laws and explanations in classical mechanics and then reconstructs the corresponding models of explanation, as well as the types of scientific laws appearing in it. Finally, it compares this reconstruction with the approaches of J. Woodward and C. Hitchcock, C. Liu and with the views of M. Thalos on analytic mechanics
|Keywords||D-N model Underlying structure Initial conditions Idealizations Modification conditions Explanation by gradual concretization Phenomena as appearances/manifestations Laws of appearances/manifestations General/singular appearances/manifestations Humean type causal law Idealized type of a law Scientific laws of the causal type C. G. Hempel J. Woodward C. Hitchcock C. Liu M. Thalos|
|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
Carl Hempel (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. The Free Press.
Carl G. Hempel (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,Prentice-Hall.
James Woodward & Christopher Hitchcock (2003). Explanatory Generalizations, Part I: A Counterfactual Account. Noûs 37 (1):1–24.
Carl G. Hempel & Paul Oppenheim (1948). Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science 15 (2):135-175.
Carl G. Hempel (1942). The Function of General Laws in History. Journal of Philosophy 39 (2):35-48.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jon Dorling (1978). On Explanations in Physics: Sketch of an Alternative to Hempel's Account of the Explanation of Laws. Philosophy of Science 45 (1):136-140.
Stanley Paluch (1968). The Covering Law Model of Historical Explanation. Inquiry 11 (1-4):368 – 387.
Raoul Gervais & Erik Weber (2011). The Covering Law Model Applied to Dynamical Cognitive Science: A Comment on Joel Walmsley. Minds and Machines 21 (1):33-39.
Alexander Bird (1999). Explanation and Laws. Synthese 120 (1):1--18.
Robert C. Cummins (2000). "How Does It Work" Versus "What Are the Laws?": Two Conceptions of Psychological Explanation. In F. Keil & Robert A. Wilson (eds.), Explanation and Cognition, 117-145. MIT Press
Hugh Lehman (1972). Statistical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 39 (4):500-506.
Joel Press (2009). Physical Explanations and Biological Explanations, Empirical Laws and a Priori Laws. Biology and Philosophy 24 (3):359-374.
Marc Lange (2000). Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford University Press.
Martin Carrier (1998). In Defense of Psychological Laws. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):217 – 232.
Added to index2009-01-31
Total downloads29 ( #147,211 of 1,938,542 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #214,499 of 1,938,542 )
How can I increase my downloads?