Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 55 (1):141-151 (1988)
|Abstract||Classic studies of explanation, such as those of Hempel and Bromberger, took it for granted that an explanation-seeking question of the form "Why P?" should be understood as asking about the proposition P. This view has been recently challenged by Bas van Fraassen and Alan Garfinkel. They acknowledge that some questions have the surface form "Why P?", but they hold that a correct reading for why-questions should take the form "Why P (rather than Q)?", where Q is a contrasting alternative. This contrast theory is discussed here. It is argued that, properly understood, the contrast theory and the propositional approach can and should give equivalent readings to why-questions|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Barbara V. E. Klein (1980). What Should We Expect of a Theory of Explanation? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:319 - 328.
Antti Koura (1988). An Approach to Why-Questions. Synthese 74 (2):191 - 206.
William Jaworski (2009). The Logic of How-Questions. Synthese 166 (1):133 - 155.
David Sandborg (1998). Mathematical Explanation and the Theory of Why-Questions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (4):603-624.
Peter Lipton (1991). Contrastive Explanation and Causal Triangulation. Philosophy of Science 58 (4):687-697.
Peter Achinstein (1984). The Pragmatic Character of Explanation. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:275 - 292.
Charles B. Cross (1991). Explanation and the Theory of Questions. Erkenntnis 34 (2):237 - 260.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,923 of 739,697 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,697 )
How can I increase my downloads?