Referate
Hintikka
PARTIAL REVIEW OF HINTIKKA AND HALONEN' TOWARD A THEORY OF THE PROCESS OF EXPLANATION
The covering laws are normally different for different explananda.
But if each particular explanation would involve a separate quest of a covering law, these laws would likewise be multiplied without necessity and without reason.
- Consideratii impotriva reductionismului antistructural
- Philosophical considerations on the human cognitive aging
- Relatia Filosofie - Stiinta
- Cine sunt eu
- E Cioran
- In cautarea fericirii
- Elemente moderne in filosofia romaneasca
- Sensul filozofiei si sensul mintii
- Parmenide
- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Voturi:0
de catre: danutza
Numar pagini: 28
Tip document: .doc
Nivel: Liceu
Dimensiune: 30.5 KB
Downloads: 1
Credite: 0
Din referat: Hintikka
PARTIAL REVIEW OF HINTIKKA AND HALONEN' TOWARD A THEORY OF THE PROCESS OF EXPLANATION
The covering laws are normally different for different explananda.
But if each particular explanation would involve a separate quest of a covering law, these laws would likewise be multiplied without necessity and without reason.
This is similar with a sophism. Why is a law a covering law? Why such a model is subsumptionist?
Not because many different initial conditions and explanandums are subsumed under a covering law? What explains different explanandum under the same covering law are different initial conditions.
In actual scientific practice, an explanation does not consist in deriving the explanandum from a covering law plus suitable initial conditions.
The actual scientific explanations from the domain of natural sciences many times are very weak or imperfect from a logical criterion of consideration.
That is, they are not a model for the philosopher or the logician of scientific explanation.
Many times when we subsume a special case under a general one we can talk of deduction or derivation, but if the covering law or background theory has a causal form, if the covering law or background theory has not a pure logical structure (only with logical relations and operations etc.), then their deduction or derivation is not a genuine one, is not a logical deduction or derivation, but the representation of a causal or physical consequence.
Furthermore, of the covering laws relied on in explanations have the
same logical form as universal syllogistic premises, how do covering law explanations differ from syllogistic explanations?
By content and aim. The valide explanation should have a valide logical structure. Why there can be no scientific explanations that have a syllogistic logical structure?
THE PARTIAL REVIEW OF HINTIKKA AND HALONEN' TOWARD A THEORY OF THE PROCESS OF EXPLANATION
Instead, Hertz started from something that is not typically emphasized or even mentioned in covering law accounts of explanation.
It is what we have called the background theory.
In Hertz’s case, it consists of Maxwell’s equations.
From them Hertz deduced
how wave-like electromagnetic disturbances are propagated.
You see, somebody deduced something from equations. Equations contains equalities quantities, addings, subtractings, fractions, multiplications etc.