Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T02:06:15.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How The Laws Of Physics Don't Even Fib

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

A. David Kline  and
Carl A. Matheson
A. David Kline
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Carl A. Matheson
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The covering law model of explanation has a staying power not even to be outdone by Lazarus. For at least forty years, writer after writer has tried to put it in its grave for the last time. The most recent efforts come from Nancy Cartwright (1983). Her slant is at once modern and old fashioned. It is modern in that unlike the familiar charge that the covering law model lets in too much, her charge is that it does not let in enough. It is old fashioned in that the soft spot she presses is one recognized by Hempel and Oppenheim in their classical essay. (1948, p. 248).

Cartwright challenges the requirement that the sentences constituting the explanans (in particular the law or laws) must be true.

Type
Part I. Physics
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 33 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

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, Nancy. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creary, Lewis. (1981). “Causal Explanation and the Reality of Natural Component Forces,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62: 118–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Car and Oppenheim, Paul. (1948). “Studies in the Logic of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 15: 135–175. (As reprinted in Hempel, C Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Pages 245-290.)Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. (1704). Opticks. London: William Innys. (As reprinted New York: Dover, 1952.)Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. (1971). “Statistical Explanation.” In Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. Edited by Salmon, Wesle Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pages 29–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. (1970). A Probabilistic Theory of Casuality. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar