Card 6.8.1 · Root VI — The Philosophy of X Family
Scientific Explanation
When have you explained something, rather than just described it?
This question asks what it takes to have explained something — as opposed to merely having described or predicted it.
On this card
Where it sits
Under 6.8 Philosophy of science. Depends on 1.4.2 Causation. Borders 2.1 Theories of knowledge, 1.11 Emergence.
New to the fields of philosophy? Read the guide
The rival answers
| Model | An explanation is |
|---|---|
| Deductive-nomological | A derivation of the event from laws plus conditions |
| Statistical relevance | Information that changes the probability of the event |
| Causal-mechanical | An account of the mechanism that produced it |
| Unificationist | A reduction in the number of independent patterns we must accept |
| Pragmatic | An answer to a why-question, relative to a contrast class |
| Functional | An account of what something is for, in systems where that applies |
Where do you stand?
When have you explained something, rather than just described it?
One tap, no sign-up. You can change your answer at any time. Answers are counted anonymously.
Key figures
| Figure | Dates | Tradition | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aristotle | 384–322 BCE | Greek | Four causes as four kinds of explanation |
| Carl Hempel | 1905–1997 | Analytic | The deductive-nomological model |
| Wesley Salmon | 1925–2001 | Analytic | Causal-mechanical account |
| Bas van Fraassen | b. 1941 | Analytic | Pragmatics of explanation |
Talk about it here
Conversations about this question in Scientific method:
- Falsifiability is not a good criterion for what counts as science 6 replies
- A model can work for decades without being true, and instrumentalism is the honest response 6 replies
- A correlation explains nothing until someone shows the mechanism 6 replies
- Saving a theory with an auxiliary hypothesis is often exactly the right move 6 replies
- Objectivity belongs to scientific communities, not to individual scientists 6 replies
Join free to ask about it Everything in Scientific method
Connections
→ 6.8, 1.4.2 · ↔ 2.1, 1.11, 6.12, 2.8 · ◇ deductive-nomological model, causal-mechanical account, pragmatic theory · ○ Axial Age; Modern; Table 3
→ depends on · ↔ borders: genuine overlap, neither prior · ◇ answered by: points from question to answers · ○ appears in: points to the timeline and the comparisons
The full card is in the book
In The Coordinates of Thought this card goes on to a worked example that sets the answers against one case, and to where the question touches daily life — page 276.