more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 13061
[filed under theme 14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / g. Causal explanations
]
Full Idea
The height of the flagpole explains the length of the shadow because the interaction between the sunlight and the flagpole occurs before the interaction between the sunlight and the ground.
Gist of Idea
Flagpoles explain shadows, and not vice versa, because of temporal ordering
Source
Wesley Salmon (Four Decades of Scientific Explanation [1989], 3.6)
Book Ref
Salmon,Wesley C.: 'Four Decades of Scientific Explanation', ed/tr. Humphreys,Paul [Pittsburgh 2006], p.103
A Reaction
[Bromberger produced the flagpole example] This seems to be correct, and would apply to all physical cases, but there may still be cases of explanation which are not causal (in mathematics, for example).
Related Idea
Idea 4805
If laws explain the length of a flagpole's shadow, then the shadow also explains the length of the pole [Psillos]
The
20 ideas
from 'Four Decades of Scientific Explanation'
13047
|
It is knowing 'why' that gives scientific understanding, not knowing 'that'
[Salmon]
|
13046
|
Scientific explanation is not reducing the unfamiliar to the familiar
[Salmon]
|
13045
|
Explanation at the quantum level will probably be by entirely new mechanisms
[Salmon]
|
13049
|
We must distinguish true laws because they (unlike accidental generalizations) explain things
[Salmon]
|
13051
|
Deductive-nomological explanations will predict, and their predictions will explain
[Salmon]
|
13050
|
The 'inferential' conception is that all scientific explanations are arguments
[Salmon]
|
13053
|
A law is not enough for explanation - we need information about what makes a difference
[Salmon]
|
13054
|
Correlations can provide predictions, but only causes can give explanations
[Salmon]
|
13055
|
Good induction needs 'total evidence' - the absence at the time of any undermining evidence
[Salmon]
|
13056
|
Statistical explanation needs relevance, not high probability
[Salmon]
|
13057
|
Think of probabilities in terms of propensities rather than frequencies
[Salmon]
|
13059
|
Ontic explanations can be facts, or reports of facts
[Salmon]
|
13058
|
Why-questions can seek evidence as well as explanation
[Salmon]
|
13060
|
Can events whose probabilities are low be explained?
[Salmon]
|
13061
|
Flagpoles explain shadows, and not vice versa, because of temporal ordering
[Salmon]
|
13062
|
Does an item have a function the first time it occurs?
[Salmon]
|
13063
|
Explanations reveal the mechanisms which produce the facts
[Salmon]
|
13064
|
The three basic conceptions of scientific explanation are modal, epistemic, and ontic
[Salmon]
|
13065
|
Understanding is an extremely vague concept
[Salmon]
|
13067
|
For the instrumentalists there are no scientific explanations
[Salmon]
|