In these cases, in contrast to the cases from quantum mechanics, we lack a theory or body of results that delimits the factors that are potentially relevant to the probability of the outcome that interests us. Nonetheless the reliance of the CM model, as originally formulated, on counterfactuals shows that it does not completely satisfy the Humean strictures described above.
Pitt and Ruben are anthologies that contain a number of influential articles.
A second, more radical possible conclusion is that the DN account of the goal or rationale of explanation is mistaken in some much more fundamental way and that the DN model does not even state necessary conditions for successful explanation.
This information is certainly explanatorily relevant to the macroscopic behavior of the gas and we would like our account of explanation to accommodate this fact. But this situation tends to arise only within the context of a well-developed general theory with which only a few alternative hypotheses would be relevant.
There is another aspect of this example that is worthy of comment. Similarly, Salmon argues, if it is really true that the partition in the example involving quick recovery from strep is objectively homogenous—if there are no other factors that are statistically relevant to quick recovery besides whether the subject has been treated and has a resistant strain—then once we have specified the probability of quick recovery under all combinations of these factors, and the combination of factors possessed by the subject whose recovery or not, as the case may be we want to explain, we have specified all information relevant to recovery and in this sense fully explained the outcome for the subject.
Given this common starting point, Salmon is quite persuasive in arguing that it is arbitrary to hold, as Hempel does, that only individual outcomes with high probability can be explained. Assume for the sake of argument that no other factors are relevant to quick recovery.
This derivation meets the DN criteria and seems explanatory. In much the same way arguments and explanations may be confused with each other, so too may explanations and justifications. Conserved quantities are quantities so characterized in physics—linear momentum, angular momentum, charge, and so on.
For example, as noted above, the DN model connects understanding with the provision of information about nomic expectability—the idea is that understanding why an outcome occurs is a matter of seeing that it was to be expected on the basis of a law.
Jones takes birth control pills. As matters now stand both the CM model and the process theories of causation that are its more recent descendants are incomplete.
A collision between two cars that dents both is a paradigmatic causal interaction. Instead, it makes certain general assumptions about the distribution of molecular velocities and the forces involved in molecular collisions and then uses these, in conjunction with the laws of mechanics, to derive and solve a differential equation the Boltzmann transport equation describing the overall behavior of the gas.
While an IS explanation does not show that the explanandum-phenomenon was to be expected with certainty, it does the next best thing: Empirical evidence typically underdetermines scientific explanation, leaving us with multiple hypotheses, any one of which would account for the facts.
Suppose that, in the above example, the probability of quick recovery from strep, given treatment and the presence of a non-resistant strain, is rather low e. As noted above, unless the hidden structure argument is accepted, this conclusion is strongly suggested by examples like 2.
They take ships, leave no survivors, and then sail back to spend their plunder. At the very least, it must be possible to use the hypothesis as one of the premises of a valid deductive argument whose conclusion is the event to be explained. This particularly clear in connection with the social scientific examples such as risk factors for juvenile delinquency that Salmon discusses.
This treatment abstracts radically from the details of the causal processes involving particular individual molecules and instead focuses on identifying higher level variables that aggregate over many individual causal processes and that figure in general patterns that govern the behavior of the gas.
It seems fair to say, however, that his underlying assumption is that, at bottom, laws are just exceptionless generalizations describing regularities that meet certain additional distinguishing conditions that he is not at present able to formulate.The same goes for acronyms.
They're important, but if you use them, define them in "longhand," followed by the acronyms in (parentheses), so that everyone's clear.
A story has ﬁ ve basic but important elements. These ﬁ ve components are: the characters, the setting, the plot, the conﬂ ict, and the resolution. [Historical fiction world building] What are some possible explanations to explain how a fictional pirate society based in Charleston S.C.
was able to effectively hide its existence from the rest of the world for 20 years until the French and Indian war broke out? Korsakov's syndrome is a neurological disorder that makes sufferers unable to form new memories.
The world is disorienting and incoherent to patients with this disorder, so they often confabulate, and invent fictions to make the world less scary and confusing. Scientific Explanation The Structure of Explanations. Next, we consider the basic structure of the most comprehensive and effective deployment of inductive reasoning in.
Korsakov's syndrome is a neurological disorder that makes sufferers unable to form new memories. The world is disorienting and incoherent to patients with this disorder, so they often confabulate and invent fictions to make the world less scary and confusing.
A social psychologist might say that these patients: A. have no schemas.Download