Philosophy of Science 28 (4):429-436 (1961)
In 'Hempel and Oppenheim on Explanation', (see preceding article) Eberle, Kaplan, and Montague criticize the analysis of explanation offered by Hempel and Oppenheim in their 'Studies in the Logic of Explanation'. These criticisms are shown to be related to the fact that Hempel and Oppenheim's analysis fails to satisfy simultaneously three newly proposed criteria of adequacy for any analysis of explanation. A new analysis is proposed which satisfies these criteria and thus is immune to the criticisms brought against the earlier analysis
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Explanation, Generality and Understanding.C. A. Hooker - 1980 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58 (3):284 – 290.
Similar books and articles
Comments on 'Hempel's Ambiguity' by J. Alberto Coffa.Wesley C. Salmon - 1974 - Synthese 28 (2):165 - 169.
"How Does It Work" Versus "What Are the Laws?": Two Conceptions of Psychological Explanation.Robert C. Cummins - 2000 - In F. Keil & Robert A. Wilson (eds.), Explanation and Cognition, 117-145. MIT Press.
Studies in the Logic of Explanation.Carl G. Hempel & Paul Oppenheim - 1948 - Philosophy of Science 15 (2):135-175.
Deductive Explanation and Prediction Revisited.W. A. Suchting - 1967 - Philosophy of Science 34 (1):41-52.
Explanations by Mechanisms in the Social Sciences. Problems, Advantages and Alternatives.Karl-Dieter Opp - 2005 - Mind and Society 4 (2):163-178.
The Metaphorical Conception of Scientific Explanation: Rereading Mary Hesse. [REVIEW]Maria Rentetzi - 2005 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):377 - 391.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads228 ( #15,939 of 2,158,904 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #86,489 of 2,158,904 )
How can I increase my downloads?