Abstract

Both the positivist and negativist frameworks of explanation are common in this naturalist proposition that unlike the metaphysical philosophy, reality is embedded only in experimental level. Therefore, the scientific explanation of natural and social phenomenon should refer to this experimental level in order to be called meaningful, verifiable and scientific. But, the problem was always that the principle of causality as a necessary condition for every kind of scientific explanation is not logically deductible from induction in experimental level and remains as a metaphysical principle. The principle of experimental objectivity as a condition for the verifiability clause of scientific explanations could not be defended, because the experimentation was always embedded in subjectivity and theory. The Kantian idealists, in contrast, considering the scientific explanation as a mere representation of reality in subjective categories, could not justify the experimental knowledge of reality and the rationality for comparison among theories and paradigms. Critical Realism as an important approach in philosophy of science that relates to the works and thoughts of Roy Bhaskar tries to solve these problems by resorting to its principles of ontological realism, epistemological relativism, and judgmental rationality. Considering and analyzing the scientific explanation’s issues, we have focused here on the answers of the Critical Realism in this case. We will argue that how the Critical Realist interpretation of scientific explanation, the experimental phenomenon, and the subjective construction and ontological reality all reach to a logical coherence with each other.