more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 15057

[filed under theme 14. Science / D. Explanation / 3. Best Explanation / b. Ultimate explanation ]

Full Idea

We take ground to be an explanatory relation: if the truth that P is grounded in other truths, then they account for its truth; P's being the case holds in virtue of the other truths' being the case. ...It is the ultimate form of explanation.

Gist of Idea

Ultimate explanations are in 'grounds', which account for other truths, which hold in virtue of the grounding

Source

Kit Fine (The Question of Realism [2001], 5)

Book Ref

-: 'Philosophers' Imprint' [-], p.16


A Reaction

To be 'ultimate' that which grounds would have to be something which thwarted all further explanation. Popper, for example, got quite angry at the suggestion that we should put a block on further investigation in this way.

Related Idea

Idea 5451 Popper felt that ancient essentialism was a bar to progress [Popper, by Mautner]


The 12 ideas with the same theme [possibility of completely explaining anything]:

The best explanations get down to primary basics, but others go less deep [Boyle]
Nature can be fully explained by final causes alone, or by efficient causes alone [Leibniz]
If we find a hypothesis that explains many things, we conclude that it explains everything [Nietzsche]
Science does not aim at ultimate explanations [Popper]
It's not at all clear that explanation needs to stop anywhere [Rey]
Ultimate explanations are in 'grounds', which account for other truths, which hold in virtue of the grounding [Fine,K]
There are four types of bottom-level activities which will explain phenomena [Machamer/Darden/Craver]
Subatomic particles may terminate explanation, if they lack structure [Mumford]
Maybe dispositions can replace the 'laws of nature' as the basis of explanation [Mumford]
To avoid a regress in explanations, ungrounded dispositions will always have to be posited [Mumford]
If the ultimate explanation is a list of entities, no laws, patterns or mechanisms can be cited [Sider]
There is nothing wrong with an infinite regress of mechanisms and regularities [Leuridan]