more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
The Hempelian deductive-nomological model of explanation clearly fits in well with the notion of explanation in terms of coherence. One way of fitting a belief into a system is to show that it is deducible from other beliefs.
Clarification
see under 'Lawlike Explanations' for the Hempel view
Gist of Idea
Deducing from laws is one possible way to achieve a coherent explanation
Source
J.J.C. Smart (Explanation - Opening Address [1990], p.13)
Book Ref
'Explanation and Its Limits', ed/tr. Knowles,Dudley [CUP 1990], p.13
A Reaction
Smart goes on to reject the law-based deductive approach, for familiar reasons, but at least it has something in common with the Smart view of explanation, which is the one I like.
| 17061 | Explanation of a fact is fitting it into a system of beliefs [Smart] |
| 17062 | If scientific explanation is causal, that rules out mathematical explanation [Smart] |
| 17063 | Unlike Newton, Einstein's general theory explains the perihelion of Mercury [Smart] |
| 17070 | Coherence is consilience, simplicity, analogy, and fitting into a web of belief [Smart] |
| 17072 | We need comprehensiveness, as well as self-coherence [Smart] |
| 17071 | An explanation is better if it also explains phenomena from a different field [Smart] |
| 17073 | I simply reject evidence, if it is totally contrary to my web of belief [Smart] |
| 17074 | Explanations are bad by fitting badly with a web of beliefs, or fitting well into a bad web [Smart] |
| 17075 | Scientific explanation tends to reduce things to the unfamiliar (not the familiar) [Smart] |
| 17076 | Deducing from laws is one possible way to achieve a coherent explanation [Smart] |
| 17077 | The height of a flagpole could be fixed by its angle of shadow, but that would be very unusual [Smart] |
| 17078 | Universe expansion explains the red shift, but not vice versa [Smart] |