Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T08:56:25.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Explanation: From Covering Law to Covering Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Fritz Rohrlich
Fritz Rohrlich*
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The premise of the present paper is the primacy of understanding over explanation. The question “is the act of explaining a goal in itself, or is it a means to an end?” is here answered by “explaining is a pragmatic concept and serves the purpose of responding credibly to a request for understanding.” Explaining is secondary, understanding is primary.

Given this view of scientific explanation, one is faced with the received view and the recent literature based on it. Models of explanation cast into the covering law format do not necessarily ensure understanding, nor do they necessarily provide sufficient information for credibility.

After explicating this dissatisfaction (Section 2) I shall first clarify what I mean by scientific theory, law, and model (Section 3) since these concepts are crucial for the covering theory model proposed in Section 4.

Type
Part II. Explanation, Induction, and Linguistic Representation
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 69 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

References

Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, Journal of Philosophy, 71: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R.N. (1988), Explaining Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C.G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G. and Oppenheim, P. (1948), “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”, in Philosophy of Science 15: 135–75. Reprinted in Hempel (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, P.W. (1989a), The Chances of Explanation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, P.W. (1989b), “The Causes, Some of the Causes, and Nothing but the Causes”, in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W.C. (1989), pp.283–306.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (1989), (eds.), Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 410–505.Google Scholar
Rohrlich, F. (1988), “Pluralistic Ontology and Theory Reduction in the Physical Sciences”, British Journal on the Philosophy of Science, 39, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrlich, F. (1989), “The Logic of Reduction: The Case of Gravitation”, Foundations of Physics, 19, 1151–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrlich, F. and Hardin, L. (1983), “Established Theories”, Philosophy of Science, 50,603-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W.C. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W.C. (1989), Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar