Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Perception', 'Remarks on axiomatised set theory' and 'A Survey of Metaphysics'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


3 ideas

14. Science / D. Explanation / 1. Explanation / b. Aims of explanation
An explanation presupposes something that is improbable unless it is explained [Robinson,H]
     Full Idea: Any search for an explanation presupposes that there is something in need of an explanation - that is, something which is improbable unless explained.
     From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.3)
     A reaction: Elementary enough, but it underlines the human perspective of all explanations. I may need an explanation of baseball, where you don't.
If all possibilities are equal, order seems (a priori) to need an explanation - or does it? [Robinson,H]
     Full Idea: The fact that order requires an explanation seems to be an a priori principle; ..we assume all possibilities are equally likely, and so no striking regularities should emerge; the sceptic replies that a highly ordered sequence is as likely as any other.
     From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], IX.3)
     A reaction: An independent notion of 'order' is required. If I write down '14356', and then throw 1 4 3 5 6 on a die, the match is the order; instrinsically 14356 is nothing special. If you threw the die a million times, a run of six sixes seems quite likely.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 1. Explanation / d. Explaining people
The behaviour of persons and social groups seems to need rational rather than causal explanation [Lowe]
     Full Idea: There are some entities which exist in time and space (such as persons or social groups) of which the behaviour seems to be subject to rational rather than merely causal explanation.
     From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.2)
     A reaction: This begs of the question of whether 'rational' can be reduced to causal. We can't manage causal explanations of the very complex, so we use broad-brush second-best explanations?