Explanation, confirmation, and Hempel's paradox

In Kevin McCain & Ted Poston (eds.), Best explanations: New essays on inference to the best explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 219-241 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Hempel’s Converse Consequence Condition (CCC), Entailment Condition (EC), and Special Consequence Condition (SCC) have some prima facie plausibility when taken individually. Hempel, though, shows that they have no plausibility when taken together, for together they entail that E confirms H for any propositions E and H. This is “Hempel’s paradox”. It turns out that Hempel’s argument would fail if one or more of CCC, EC, and SCC were modified in terms of explanation. This opens up the possibility that Hempel’s paradox can be solved by modifying one or more of CCC, EC, and SCC in terms of explanation. I explore this possibility by modifying CCC and SCC in terms of explanation and considering whether CCC and SCC so modified are correct. I also relate that possibility to Inference to the Best Explanation.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Paradox of Confirmation.Branden Fitelson - 2006 - Philosophy Compass 1 (1):95–113.
Queries on Hempel’s Solution to the Paradoxes of Confirmation.Dun Xinguo - 2007 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (1):131-139.
On the Equivalence of Goodman’s and Hempel’s Paradoxes.Kenneth Boyce - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 45:32-42.
Does the Bayesian Solution to the Paradox of Confirmation Really Support Bayesianism?Brian Laetz - 2011 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):39-46.
The Converse-Consequence Condition.Peter Hutcheson - 1981 - Southwest Philosophical Studies 6.
On the Confirmation of Explanation in History.David Stern Levin - 1980 - Dissertation, Cornell University
Theories and the Transitivity of Confirmation.Mary Hesse - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (1):50-63.
Goodman, 'Grue' and Hempel.C. A. Hooker - 1968 - Philosophy of Science 35 (3):232-247.
Explanation Revisited.David Kaplan - 1961 - Philosophy of Science 28 (4):429-436.
A Neglected Response to the Paradoxes of Confirmation.Murali Ramachandran - 2017 - South African Journal of Philosophy 36 (2):179-85.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-07-26

Downloads
369 (#29,734)

6 months
42 (#23,749)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

William Roche
Texas Christian University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Laws and Symmetry.Bas C. Van Fraassen - 1989 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Inference to the Best Explanation.Peter Lipton - 1991 - London and New York: Routledge.
Causality and Explanation.Wesley C. Salmon - 1997 - Oxford University Press.
Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual.Elliott Sober - 2015 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 58 references / Add more references