Erkenntnis 29 (1):1 - 33 (1988)
|Abstract||In this paper an attempt is made at developing the notion of a real and complete empirical explanation as excluding all forms of potential or incomplete explanations. This explanation is, however, no longer conceived as the proper aim of empirical science, for it can certainly be gleaned from recent epistemological publications that no comprehensive notion of a real and complete scientific explanation is likely to be constructed from within empirical science. Contrary to common understanding the empirical explanation, deductive-nomological as well as statistical explanation, is considered here only as motive of scientific activities, i.e., as common aim of a transcending cooperation of scientific and non-scientific social practice. Following from this the proper aim of empirical science now consists in the development of practically relevant explanatory theories.This redetermination of the aim of scientific activities of empirical science also means criticism of the unification of deductive-nomological and statistical explanations, as it has been proposed by Wolfgang Stegmüller in his pragmatisch-epistemische Wende. For both forms of empirical explanation must be referred to fundamentally different kinds of practical relevance, the former playing a more important role in the advancement of social practice. Stegmüller's development of a comprehensive probabilistic notion of empirical explanation, as tied up to pragmatic knowledge-situations, in a way already transcends a scientifically immanent determination of it, but he seems to have stopped halfway on the road to practically relevant empirical explanations. Several insufficiencies with his probabilistic notion of empirical explanation are shown up in this paper as a consequence of his abiding by pragmatic, and not penetrating to practical, knowledge-situations. The final result of it, however, consists in a clarification and a modification of the concept of deductive-nomological explanation, originally developed by Hempel and Oppenheim.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nicholas Maxwell, Non-Empirical Requirements Scientific Theories Must Satisfy: Simplicity, Unification, Explanation, Beauty. PhilSci Archive.
Sten Spam Nikon (1971). Covering Laws in Historical Practice. Inquiry 14 (1-4):445-463.
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.
Peter Railton (1978). A Deductive-Nomological Model of Probabilistic Explanation. Philosophy of Science 45 (2):206-226.
Edwin H. -C. Hung (2005). Projective Explanation: How Theories Explain Empirical Data in Spite of Theory-Data Incommensurability. Synthese 145 (1):111 - 129.
Gerhard Schurz (1982). Ein Logisch-Pragmatisches Modell Von Deduktiv-Nomologischer Erklärung (Systematisierung). Erkenntnis 17 (3):321 - 347.
Gerhard Schurz (1995). Scientific Explanation: A Critical Survey. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 1 (3):429-465.
Edmund Nierlich (1990). Eine Konstruktivistische Grundlegung der Objekte Empirisch-Wissenschaftlicher Theorien. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 21 (1):75 - 104.
Edmund Nierlich (2005). An “Empirical Science” of Literature. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (2):351 - 376.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,250 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?