The Deductive-Nomological (D-N) Model gives an account of explanation through its basic form, the Covering Law Model. The D-N Model asks the basic question “What is a scientific explanation?” The aim of this paper is to answer that question and further develop the definition of an explanation by problematizing the D-N Model’s account of explanation, providing a solution to one of those problems, and then further problematizing that solution. By examining the details of an example that the D-N Model explains well, we can see why this model was popular in the first place before describing two of its major problems. Then, by looking at Wesley Salmon’s account of scientific explanation, we can see just how problematic the flaws in the D-N Model …show more content…
Scientific explanations are broken down into explanans and explanendums. Here, explanans are things that do the explaining, and are further divided into laws and conditions; explanendums are the observed phenomenon. The D-N model states, more specifically, that scientific explanation is a demonstration of how the explanendum is an instance of a true general law. Hempel and Oppenheim’s Bent Oar Example is a terrific illustration of a time when the D-N Model gave an accurate account of explanation for the event that occurred. In this example the explanans are the general law that light bends between mediums and the condition that refraction of index and density of water are different than those of air. The explanendum is that the oar appears bent in water. This explanation says that, due to the conditions, the observed phenomena occurred and is in accordance with the law. While there are situations in which the D-N Model does a decent job of capturing the explanation, there are many instances where it does not provide a fully compelling account of …show more content…
Salmon’s writings state that scientific explanation requires a description of causal processes, of which there are two kinds: causal connection and common cause. The focus of this section will be on solving the relevance problem and, according to Salmon, what it means to be statistically relevant is that there is a causal connection. That is, there is a direct connection between A and B, where A directly causes B or vice versa. In the example of the man on birth control, there is a one hundred percent correlation between a man taking birth control pills and not getting pregnant, but there is also a one hundred percent correlation between a man not using birth control pills and not getting pregnant. Salmon’s solution is to say that, due to Toby’s lack of a uterus and other functioning female reproductive organs, if Toby stops taking birth control he will never get pregnant. Therefore, there is no causal connection, making the pills irrelevant to this
In his “Philosophical Explanations”, Robert Nozick produced his tracking theory of knowledge. This externalist theory is used to explain how through truth tracking we can obtain knowledge. He states that what we use to learn of the truth is the method. But Nozick denies the importance of methods in his theory, to the point were does not even believe that we have to know what the method is. Instead, Nozick allows us to use any method we wish to, so long as we only use one. But not all methods are reliable, and therefore don’t allow for us to be justified. As such Nozick’s theory fails since it does not limit the methods that can be used, which makes it so that if we follow the theory we will not necessarily gain knowledge but only a true belief.
...l cannot account for that. So being that the hypothetical space explorer experiment and fails to address accidental pregnancy through consensual sex, only accounts for lethal pregnancies, and makes Warren’s argument fails.
An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, contexts, and consequences of those facts. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined. The first piece Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution written by Elizabeth Bumiller, is an explanation. Bumiller addresses her points using facts rather than opinions, she also says, “Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.”(2), this signifies that this is an explanation and not an argument since he sees both sides instead of choosing one. For
Observations (page 26) are only clues to a mystery. The schema created by the observer can affect the results. "Therefore, observations like those discussed in the preceding sections could be collected and put in systematic form by men whose beliefs about the structure of the universe resembled those of the ancient Egyptians" (page 26).
In this short paper I will examine the positions of foundationalism and coherentism, and argue that a form of weak foundationalism is the most satisfactory option as a valid theory of justification for knowledge and is therefore a viable way of avoiding any sort of vicious regress problem and skepticism.
In the critique of pure reason, Kant states, “All alternations occur in accordance with the law of the connection of cause and effect.”1 This statement is interpreted in two different ways: weak readings and strong readings. Weaker readings basically suggest that Kant's statement only refers to “All events have a cause”; however, the strong readings suggest that “the Second Analogy is committed not just to causes, but to causal laws as well.”2 To understand the difference between the readings, it is helpful to notice Kant's distinction between empirical laws of nature and universal transcendental principles. Empirical laws have an empirical element that universal transcendental principles cannot imply. On the other hand, empirical experiences require necessity to become a law, accordingly, “the transcendental laws “ground” the empirical laws by supplying them with their necessity.”3In this paper, according to this distinction, I first, argue that the second analogy supports the weak reading, second, show how in Prolegomena he uses the concept of causation in a way that is compatible to the strong reading, and third, investigate whether this incongruity is solvable.
In his recent studies showing Galileo's knowledge of and adherence to the deductive standards of explanation in science set forth by Aristotle, Wallace (1) remarks that this Aristotelean theory must not be confused with the contemporary deductive-nomological theory of Hempel and Oppenheim. (2) There are, of course, important differences between the classic works of Aristotle and Hempel, for twenty-three centuries lie between them. But the differences are not as great as might be expected, and, as current discussions of the metatheoretical issues of explanation are generally ahistorical, I believe an attempt to compare these two intellectual mileposts in our understanding of scientific method should prove useful.
This paper discusses how cosmology and how philosophy can be connected to one another. In order to explain this reason, the paper is broken down into three subtitles which are: metaphysics, religion, and ontology. Each part connects to cosmology in one term or another. In each subtopic, it will discuss the topic, its background in the philosophical review. As a result, in the conclusion, it will discuss how cosmology compares to them all.
In the essay “Studies In the Logic of Explanation”, Carl Hempel attempts to break down scientific explanation into its fundamental components in pursuit of defining what it means to explain a phenomenon scientifically. In doing so, he proposes a set of rigorous criteria that he believes constitute a true explanation. He starts by separating an explanation “into two major constituents, the explanandum and the explanans” (136). The explanandum is the phenomenon that is to be explained, while the explanans represent a series of statements which “account for the phenomenon” (137). According to Hempel, the explanans can be further subdivided into particular antecedent conditions and certain general laws which can be combined in such a way to
Since its inception, science relied on predictability and order. The true beauty of science was its uncanny ability to find patterns and regularity in seemingly random systems. For centuries the human mind as easily grasped and mastered the concepts of linearity. Physics illustrated the magnificent order to which the natural world obeyed. If there is a God he is indeed mathematical. Until the 19th century Physics explained the processes of the natural world successfully, for the most part. There were still many facets of the universe that were an enigma to physicists. Mathematicians could indeed illustrate patterns in nature but there were many aspects of Mother Nature that remained a mystery to Physicists and Mathematicians alike. Mathematics is an integral part of physics. It provides an order and a guide to thinking; it shows the relationship between many physical phenomenons. The error in mathematics until that point was linearity. “Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line.” - Benoit Mandlebrot. Was it not beyond reason that a process, which is dictated by that regularity, could master a world that shows almost no predictability whatsoever? A new science and a new kind of mathematics were developed that could show the universe’s idiosyncrasies. This new amalgam of mathematics and physics takes the order of linearity and shows how it relates to the unpredictability of the world around us. It is called Chaos Theory.
The purpose of my paper is to attempt to answer the question whether the problem of the origin of the world currently evades philosophers (and theologians) and passes completely to the realm of science (i.e. physics, astronomy and cosmology), or whether science by itself is not able to solve this problem. In the latter case one would have to acknowledge that metaphysics, the philosophy of nature and epistemology, provides important premisses, assumptions and methods indispensable for this solution.
We need theories that follow natural law, and references events observable in nature. To develop a theory that complements nature, we study nature and then extrapolate.
Theorizing and hypothesizing are at the heart of the scientific method and are imperative to the progression of science. Understanding how the universe works additionally entails understanding how the universe does not work. Amongst Aristotelian physics were the original theories...
The Justified True Belief (JTB) theory of knowledge, often attributed to Plato , is a fairly straightforward theory of knowledge. It states that something must be true if person S believes proposition P, proposition P is true, and S is justified in believing in believing that P is true . While many consider the JTB theory to be vital to the understanding of knowledge, some, such as American Philosopher Edmund Gettier, believe that it is flawed. I tend to agree with Gettier and others who object to the JTB theory as an adequate theory of knowledge, as the JTB theory allows for a type of implied confirmation bias that can lead people to be justified in believing they know something even though it isn’t true.
An explanation is one which is ‘rooted' or firmly embedded in psychology and in reality. An explanation is one which should make something vivid to the person inquiring. A young child asking why the sky is blue or why water freezes cannot be satisfied with an answer couched in scientific polysyllables that he does not understand. To be effective, an explanation must be one which is easy to understand. On the other hand, a proper explanation must rest on truth - that is, it must refer to reality. A good explanation is one which fulfils or satisfies the particular need of the inquirer and answers only that.