more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 6755
[filed under theme 14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / e. Lawlike explanations
]
Full Idea
Hempel proposes that explanations involve covering laws and antecedent conditions; this view (the 'covering law' view) has two versions, the deductive-nomological model and the probabilistic-statistical model of explanation.
Clarification
'Nomological' means concerning laws of nature
Gist of Idea
For Hempel, explanations are deductive-nomological or probabilistic-statistical
Source
report of Carl Hempel (Aspects of Scientific Explanation [1965]) by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.2
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.67
A Reaction
The obvious problem with this approach, it seem to me, is that the laws themselves need explanation, and I don't see how a law can be foundational unless there is a divine law-giver. Are the laws arbitrary and axiomatic?
The
35 ideas
with the same theme
[explain events by showing laws imply them]:
|
13109
|
Chance is inexplicable, because we can only explain what happens always or usually
[Aristotle]
|
|
12357
|
Explanation and generality are inseparable
[Aristotle, by Wedin]
|
|
15282
|
Facts should be deducible from the theory and initial conditions, and prefer the simpler theory
[Osiander, by Harré/Madden]
|
|
12107
|
Positivism explains facts by connecting particular phenomena with general facts
[Comte]
|
|
17091
|
Explanation is fitting of facts into ever more general patterns of regularity
[Mill, by Ruben]
|
|
17550
|
We give a mathematical account of a system of natural connections in order to clarify them
[Heisenberg]
|
|
17673
|
The modern worldview is based on the illusion that laws explain nature
[Wittgenstein]
|
|
6755
|
For Hempel, explanations are deductive-nomological or probabilistic-statistical
[Hempel, by Bird]
|
|
17083
|
The covering-law model is for scientific explanation; historical explanation is quite different
[Hempel]
|
|
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]
|
|
13053
|
A law is not enough for explanation - we need information about what makes a difference
[Salmon]
|
|
17684
|
To explain observations by a regular law is to explain the observations by the observations
[Armstrong]
|
|
15556
|
Science may well pursue generalised explanation, rather than laws
[Lewis]
|
|
16167
|
Laws get the facts wrong, and explanation rests on improvements and qualifications of laws
[Cartwright,N]
|
|
16169
|
Laws apply to separate domains, but real explanations apply to intersecting domains
[Cartwright,N]
|
|
16171
|
The covering law view assumes that each phenomenon has a 'right' explanation
[Cartwright,N]
|
|
16176
|
Covering-law explanation lets us explain storms by falling barometers
[Cartwright,N]
|
|
16177
|
I disagree with the covering-law view that there is a law to cover every single case
[Cartwright,N]
|
|
16180
|
You can't explain one quail's behaviour by just saying that all quails do it
[Cartwright,N]
|
|
16810
|
Deduction explanation is too easy; any law at all will imply the facts - together with the facts!
[Lipton]
|
|
16809
|
Good explanations may involve no laws and no deductions
[Lipton]
|
|
16829
|
We reject deductive explanations if they don't explain, not if the deduction is bad
[Lipton]
|
|
16563
|
The explanation is not the regularity, but the activity sustaining it
[Machamer/Darden/Craver]
|
|
14342
|
General laws depend upon the capacities of particulars, not the other way around
[Mumford]
|
|
4802
|
Just citing a cause does not enable us to understand an event; we also need a relevant law
[Psillos]
|
|
4804
|
The 'covering law model' says only laws can explain the occurrence of single events
[Psillos]
|
|
4805
|
If laws explain the length of a flagpole's shadow, then the shadow also explains the length of the pole
[Psillos]
|
|
16245
|
Laws should help explain the things they govern, or that manifest them
[Maudlin]
|
|
6758
|
'Covering law' explanations only work if no other explanations are to be found
[Bird]
|
|
6759
|
Livers always accompany hearts, but they don't explain hearts
[Bird]
|
|
13229
|
Maybe an instance of a generalisation is more explanatory than the particular case
[Steiner,M]
|
|
12790
|
Generalisations must be invariant to explain anything
[Leuridan]
|
|
14569
|
It is tempting to think that only entailment provides a full explanation
[Mumford/Anjum]
|
|
17939
|
Mathematics can reveal structural similarities in diverse systems
[Colyvan]
|