Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:37:21.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What's Wrong with Salmon's History: The Third Decade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

James H. Fetzer
James H. Fetzer*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, Duluth
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, Duluth, MN 55812, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

My purpose here is to elaborate the reasons I maintain that Salmon has not been completely successful in reporting the history of work on explanation. The most important limitation of his account is that it does not emphasize the critical necessity to embrace a suitable conception of probability in the development of the theory of probabilistic explanation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 246 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to express appreciation to Paul Humphreys, to Wesley Salmon, and to Ellery Eells for valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Coffa, J. A. (1973), The Foundations of Inductive Explanation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Coffa, J. A. (1974), “Hempel's Ambiguity”, Synthese 28: 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. (1983), “Objective Probability Theory Theory”, Synthese 57: 387–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1970), The Statistician's Dilemma. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1971), “Dispositional Probabilities”, in Buck, R. and Cohen, R. (eds.), PSA 1970. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1974a), “A Single Case Propensity Theory of Explanation”, Synthese 28: 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1974b), “Statistical Probabilities: Single Case Propensities vs. Long Run Frequencies”, in Leinfellner, W. and Kohler, E. (eds.), Developments in the Methodology of Social Science. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1976), “The Likeness of Lawlikeness”, in Cohen, R. et al., (eds.), R. Cohen et al., Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 377–391.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1977), “Reichenbach, Reference Classes, and Single Case ‘Probabilities‘”, Synthese 34: 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1981), Scientific Knowledge: Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1983), “Probabilistic Explanations”, PSA 1982, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 194–207.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1987), “Critical Notice: Wesley Salmon's Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World”, Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World 54: 597–610.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1988), “Probabilistic Metaphysics”, in Fetzer, J. H., (ed.), J. H. Fetzer, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 109–132.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1991), “Critical Notice: Philip Kitcher and Wesley C. Salmon, eds., Scientific Explanation; and Wesley C. Salmon, Four Decades of Scientific Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 58: 288–306.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (forthcoming), Philosophy of Science. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J. H., and Nute, D. E. (1979), “Syntax, Semantics, and Ontology: A Probabilistic Causal Calculus”, Synthese 40: 453–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. H., and Nute, D. E. (1980), “A Probabilistic Causal Calculus: Conflicting Conceptions”, Synthese 41: 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1962), “Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation”, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G., (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 3, Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 98–169.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), “Aspects of Scientific Explanation”, Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press, pp. 331–496.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1968), “Maximal Specificity and Lawlikeness in Probabilistic Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 35: 116–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyburg, H. (1974), “Propensities and Probabilities”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 25–42.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973), Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. (1969), “Chance”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume), pp. 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nute, D. (1984), “Conditional Logic”, in Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, H., (eds.), D. Gabbay and H. Guenthner, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 387–439.Google Scholar
Railton, P. (1978), “A Deductive-Nomological Model of Probabilistic Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 45: 206–226.Google Scholar
Railton, P. (1980), Explaining Explanation. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Railton, P. (1981), “Probability, Explanation, and Information”, Synthese 48: 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1970), “Statistical Explanation”, in Colodny, R. G. (ed.), The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 173–231.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1971), Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. With contributions by R. C. Jeffrey and J. G. Greeno. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1977), “Objectively Homogeneous Reference Classes”, Synthese 36: 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1990), Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Scriven, M. (1962), “Explanation, Prediction, and Laws”, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G., (eds.), H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 170–230.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar