Samenvatting

Summary Chapter 3 of Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction

Name: Chapter 3 of Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction
SKU: doc_730792
Rating: 4.00 (1 reviews)
Author: sachajacobs

1 beoordeling

3 keer verkocht

Instelling
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)

Boek
Philosophy of Science

Samenvatting van Hoofdstuk 3: Explanation in Science uit Philosophy of Science: A Very Small Introduction van Samir Okasha

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 1 van de 4 pagina's

Bekijk voorbeeld

Heel boek samengevat? Nee
Wat is er van het boek samengevat? H3
Geupload op 4 juni 2020
Aantal pagina's 4
Geschreven in 2019/2020
Type Samenvatting

1 beoordeling

Door: jpserenity • 2 jaar geleden

Volgen

sachajacobs Lid sinds 4 jaar 118 documenten verkocht

€4,04

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel v.a. €15,48

In winkelwagen

Opslaan

100% tevredenheidsgarantie
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Lees online óf als PDF
Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel (1)

Philosophy of Science

€ 44,44 € 15,48

2x verkocht

11 items

1. Samenvatting - Chapter 1 of philosophy of science: a very short introduction
2. Samenvatting - Chapter 2 of philosophy of science: a very short introduction
3. Samenvatting - Chapter 3 of philosophy of science: a very short introduction
4. Samenvatting - Chapter 5: scientific change and scientific revolutions
5. Samenvatting - Chapter 7: science and its critics
6. Samenvatting - Kantianism
7. Samenvatting - Consequentialism
8. Samenvatting - Singer - all animals are equal
9. Samenvatting - Akhtar - flaws and human harms of animals experimentation
10. Samenvatting - Thomson - defense of abortion
11. Samenvatting - Marquis - why abortion is immoral
Meer zien

One important aim of science is to try and explain what happens in the world around us. Modern
science is quite successful in its aim of supplying explanations.

Hempel's covering law model of explanation
Hempel noted that scientific explanations are usually given in response to what he called
'explanation-seeking-why-questions'. He suggested that scientific explanations typically have
the logical structure of argument, i.e. a set of premises followed by a conclusion. The conclusion
states that the phenomenon which needs explaining occurs, and the premises tell us why the
conclusion is true. The task of providing an account of scientific explanation then becomes the
task of characterizing precisely by the relation that must hold between a set of premises and a
conclusion, in order for the former to count as an explanation of the latter. Hempel's answer to
the problem was threefold. First, the premises should entail the conclusion,e.g. the argument
must be deductive. Secondly, the premises should all be true. Thirdly, the premises should
consist of at least one general law. Hempel allowed that a scientific explanation could appeal to
particular facts as well as general laws, but he held that at least one general law was always
essential. The phenomenon to be explained is called the explanandum and the general laws
and particular facts that do the explanation are called the explanans. The essence of
explanation is to show that the phenomenon to be explained is 'covered' by some general law of
nature. Hempel drew an interesting consequence from his model about the relation between
explanation and prediction. Whenever we give a covering law explanation of a phenomenon, the
laws and particular facts we cite would have enabled us to predict the occurrence of the
phenomenon, if we hadn't already known about it. Hempel claimed that every scientific
explanation is potentially a prediction - it would have served to predict the phenomenon in
question, had it not already been known. Hempel also though that every reliable prediction is
potentially an explanation. Explanation and prediction are structurally symmetric.

Case (i): the problem of symmetry
Situation A:
General law Light travels in straight lines
Laws of trigonometry
Particular facts Angle of elevation of sun is 37'
Flagpole is 15 metres high
Phenomenon to be explained Shadow is 20 metres long

Situation B: Explanandum swapped
General law Light travels in straight lines
Laws of trigonometry
Particular facts Angle of elevation of sun is 37'
Shadow is 20 metres long
Phenomenon to be explained Flagpole is 15 metres high

The explanation for situation B conforms to the covering law pattern. However it seems weird to
regard this as an explanation of why the pole is 15 metres high. Hempel's model is too liberal: it
allows something to count as a scientific explanation which obviously is not. The general moral

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.