more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
It is said that a good explanation ought to show that the explanandum event had to happen, given the laws and circumstances.
Clarification
The 'explanandum' is the thing to be explained
Gist of Idea
A good explanation is supposed to show that the event had to happen
Source
David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], V)
Book Ref
Lewis,David: 'Philosophical Papers Vol.2' [OUP 1986], p.228
A Reaction
I cautiously go along with this view. Given that there are necessities in nature (a long story), we should aim to reveal them. There is no higher aspiration open to us than successful explanation. Lewis says good explanations can reveal falsehoods.
| 4809 | Lewis endorses the thesis that all explanation of singular events is causal explanation [Lewis, by Psillos] |
| 15551 | Ways of carving causes may be natural, but never 'right' [Lewis] |
| 15552 | We only pick 'the' cause for the purposes of some particular enquiry. [Lewis] |
| 15553 | Causal dependence is counterfactual dependence between events [Lewis] |
| 14321 | To explain an event is to provide some information about its causal history [Lewis] |
| 15554 | A disposition needs a causal basis, a property in a certain causal role. Could the disposition be the property? [Lewis] |
| 15555 | Explaining match lighting in general is like explaining one lighting of a match [Lewis] |
| 15556 | Science may well pursue generalised explanation, rather than laws [Lewis] |
| 15558 | A good explanation is supposed to show that the event had to happen [Lewis] |
| 15559 | Does a good explanation produce understanding? That claim is just empty [Lewis] |
| 15557 | Verisimilitude has proved hard to analyse, and seems to have several components [Lewis] |
| 15560 | We can explain a chance event, but can never show why some other outcome did not occur [Lewis] |