David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Analysis 71 (2):264-266 (2011)
Some philosophers, most notably Hempel and Salmon , have tried to reduce explanation to probability by proposing analyses of explanation in probabilistic terms. Hempel claims, roughly, that a hypothesis H explains a datum D if and only if the conditional probability P is close to 1. It is well known that such an account fails in cases where H is irrelevant for D. Even though it is highly likely that Tom will not become pregnant, given that he regularly takes his wife’s birth control pills, the latter does not explain the former. Neither does an idea work which is in the proximity of Salmon’s, namely, that H explains D if and only if P > P. Suppose Susan swallows a pound of arsenic in order to commit suicide. Shortly after, however, she dies because she is run over by a bus. The probability of dying, given that one ingests a pound of arsenic, is usually higher than the prior probability of dying. Nonetheless, it is not the arsenic but the collision with the bus which explains Susan’s death. The aforementioned objections are directed against …
|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
William Roche & Michael Schippers (2014). Coherence, Probability and Explanation. Erkenntnis 79 (4):821-828.
William Roche (2013). On the Truth-Conduciveness of Coherence. Erkenntnis:1-19.
Similar books and articles
Mark Siebel (2005). Against Probabilistic Measures of Coherence. Erkenntnis 63 (3):335 - 360.
Paul Thagard (2007). Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74 (1):28-47.
Gregory Wheeler & Richard Scheines (2011). Causation, Association and Confirmation. In Stephan Hartmann, Marcel Weber, Wenceslao Gonzalez, Dennis Dieks & Thomas Uebe (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation: New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered. Springer 37--51.
Paul Thagard (2010). Why Wasn't O.J. Convicted? Emotional Coherence in Legal Inference. Cognition and Emotion 17 (3):361-383.
Staffan Angere (2007). The Defeasible Nature of Coherentist Justification. Synthese 157 (3):321 - 335.
Michael Huemer (2007). Weak Bayesian Coherentism. Synthese 157 (3):337 - 346.
Kareem Khalifa (2013). Is Understanding Explanatory or Objectual? Synthese 190 (6):1153-1171.
R. W. Thatcher, J. F. Gomez-Molina, C. Biver, D. North, R. Curtin & R. W. Walker (2000). Two Compartmental Models of EEG Coherence and MRI Biophysics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (3):412-412.
David H. Glass (2007). Coherence Measures and Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 157 (3):275 - 296.
Niki Pfeifer (2008). A Probability Logical Interpretation of Fallacies. In G. Kreuzbauer, N. Gratzl & E. Hiebl (eds.), Rhetorische Wissenschaft: Rede Und Argumentation in Theorie Und Praxis. Lit 225--244.
Tomoji Shogenji (2008). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, Justification. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (1):292-296.
Mark Siebel & Werner Wolff (2008). Equivalent Testimonies as a Touchstone of Coherence Measures. Synthese 161 (2):167 - 182.
C. B. Cross (2006). Review: Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification. [REVIEW] Mind 115 (459):790-793.
Erik J. Olsson (2005). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification. Oxford University Press.
Tomoji Shogenji (2007). Why Does Coherence Appear Truth-Conducive? Synthese 157 (3):361 - 372.
Added to index2011-02-16
Total downloads60 ( #39,713 of 1,699,831 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #88,892 of 1,699,831 )
How can I increase my downloads?