David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 45 (2):206-226 (1978)
It has been the dominant view that probabilistic explanations of particular facts must be inductive in character. I argue here that this view is mistaken, and that the aim of probabilistic explanation is not to demonstrate that the explanandum fact was nomically expectable, but to give an account of the chance mechanism(s) responsible for it. To this end, a deductive-nomological model of probabilistic explanation is developed and defended. Such a model has application only when the probabilities occurring in covering laws can be interpreted as measures of objective chance, expressing the strength of physical propensities. Unlike inductive models of probabilistic explanation, this deductive model stands in no need of troublesome requirements of maximal specificity or epistemic relativization
|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
Kareem Khalifa (2013). Is Understanding Explanatory or Objectual? Synthese 190 (6):1153-1171.
Luke Glynn (2010). Deterministic Chance. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (1):51–80.
Daniel J. Nicholson (2012). The Concept of Mechanism in Biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 43 (1):152-163.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2010). The Mind as Neural Software? Understanding Functionalism, Computationalism, and Computational Functionalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (2):269-311.
Christopher Evan Franklin (2011). Farewell to the Luck (and Mind) Argument. Philosophical Studies 156 (2):199-230.
Similar books and articles
P. T. Landsberg & J. Wise (1988). Components of Probabilistic Support: The Two-Proposition Case. Philosophy of Science 55 (3):402-414.
Wesley C. Salmon (1974). Comments on 'Hempel's Ambiguity' by J. Alberto Coffa. Synthese 28 (2):165 - 169.
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.
Joseph F. Hanna (1982). Probabilistic Explanation and Probabilistic Causality. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:181 - 193.
Edmund Nierlich (1988). Die Deduktiv-Nomologische Erklärung AlS Hauptmotiv Empirisch-Wissenschaftlicher Tätigkeit. Erkenntnis 29 (1):1 - 33.
Stuart Gluck & Steven Gimbel (1997). An Intervening Cause Counterexample to Railton's DNP Model of Explanation. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):692-697.
Gerhard Schurz (1995). Scientific Explanation: A Critical Survey. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 1 (3):429-465.
James H. Fetzer (1982). Probabilistic Explanations. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:194 - 207.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads180 ( #3,339 of 1,099,048 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #10,834 of 1,099,048 )
How can I increase my downloads?