Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A logic of knowing why.Chao Xu, Yanjing Wang & Thomas Studer - 2021 - Synthese 198 (2):1259-1285.
    When we say “I know why he was late”, we know not only the fact that he was late, but also an explanation of this fact. We propose a logical framework of “knowing why” inspired by the existing formal studies on why-questions, scientific explanation, and justification logic. We introduce the Kyi\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\mathcal {K}}{}\textit{y}}_i$$\end{document} operator into the language of epistemic logic to express “agent i knows why φ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Normische gesetzeshypothesen und die wissenschaftsphilosophische bedeutung Des nichtmonotonen schliessens.Gerhard Schurz - 2001 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 32 (1):65-107.
    Normic Laws and the Significance of Nonmonotonic Reasoning for Philosophy of Science. Normic laws have the form ‘if A then normally B’. They have been discovered in the explanation debate, but were considered as empirically vacuous (§1). I argue that the prototypical (or ideal) normality of normic laws implies statistical normality (§2), whence normic laws have empirical content. In §3–4 I explain why reasoning from normic laws is nonmonotonic, and why the understanding of the individual case is so important here. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Explanations in science and the logic of why-questions: Discussion of the halonen–hintikka-approachand alternative proposal.Gerhard Schurz - 2005 - Synthese 143 (1-2):149 - 178.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Explanation as unification.Gerhard Schurz - 1999 - Synthese 120 (1):95-114.
  • To Explain or to Predict: Which One is Mandatory?Robert W. P. Luk - 2018 - Foundations of Science 23 (2):411-414.
    Recently, Luk mentioned that scientific knowledge both explains and predicts. Do these two functions of scientific knowledge have equal significance, or is one of the two functions more important than the other? This commentary explains why prediction may be mandatory but explanation may be only desirable and optional.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Explanation and Understanding through Scientific Models.Richard David-Rus - 2009 - Dissertation, University Munich
  • Explicação Científica.Eduardo Castro - 2020 - Compêndio Em Linha de Problemas de Filosofia Analítica.
    Opinionated state of the art paper on scientific explanation. Analysis and discussion of the most relevant models and theories in the contemporary literature, namely, the deductive-nomological model, the models of inductive-statistical and statistical relevance, the pragmatic theory of why questions, the unifying theory of standard arguments, and the causal/non-causal counterfactual theory.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Abductive belief revision in science.Gerhard Schurz - 2011 - In Erik J. Olson Sebastian Enqvist (ed.), Belief Revision Meets Philosophy of Science. Springer. pp. 77--104.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Mathematical Explanations and the Piecemeal Approach to Thinking About Explanation.Gabriel Târziu - 2018 - Logique Et Analyse 61 (244):457-487.
    A new trend in the philosophical literature on scientific explanation is that of starting from a case that has been somehow identified as an explanation and then proceed to bringing to light its characteristic features and to constructing an account for the type of explanation it exemplifies. A type of this approach to thinking about explanation – the piecemeal approach, as I will call it – is used, among others, by Lange (2013) and Pincock (2015) in the context of their (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Changing minds about climate change: Belief revision, coherence, and emotion.Paul Thagard & Scott Findlay - 2011 - In Erik J. Olson Sebastian Enqvist (ed.), Belief Revision Meets Philosophy of Science. Springer. pp. 329--345.
  • Kohärenter explanatorischer Pluralismus.Stephan Hartmann - 2002 - In Wolfram Hogrebe (ed.), Grenzen und Grenzüberschreitungen. Sinclair Press. pp. 141-150.
    Die Frage, was eine wissenschaftliche Erklärung ist, stellt seit mehr als einem halben Jahrhundert ein zentrales Thema der Wissenschaftsphilosophie dar. Die heutige Diskussion begann mit einer richtungsweisenden Arbeit von Carl Hempel im Jahre 1942 über den Erklärungsbegriff in der Geschichtswissenschaft. In dieser Arbeit gab Hempel, frühere Überlegungen von John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper und anderen präzisierend, eine formale Definition der Erklärung eines singulären Faktums.1 Mit seiner dem zugrunde liegenden Auffassung, dass die Wissenschaften sehr wohl in der Lage sind, Erklärungen zu (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Explanations are like salted peanuts. Why you can't cut the route toward further reduction.Daniel Cohnitz - unknown
    This paper is a defense of an elaborated ideal explanatory text conception against criticism as put forward by Bob Batterman. It is argued that Batterman's critique of "philosophical" accounts of scientific explanation is inadequate.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation