Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Scientific explanation: A critical survey.Gerhard Schurz - 1995 - Foundations of Science 1 (3):429-465.
    This paper describes the development of theories of scientific explanation since Hempel's earliest models in the 1940ies. It focuses on deductive and probabilistic whyexplanations and their main problems: lawlikeness, explanation-prediction asymmetries, causality, deductive and probabilistic relevance, maximal specifity and homogenity, the height of the probability value. For all of these topic the paper explains the most important approaches as well as their criticism, including the author's own accounts. Three main theses of this paper are: (1) Both deductive and probabilistic explanations (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • More on Maximal Specificity.Henry E. Kyburg - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (2):295-300.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Is default logic a reinvention of inductive-statistical reasoning?Yao-Hua Tan - 1997 - Synthese 110 (3):357-379.
    Currently there is hardly any connection between philosophy of science and Artificial Intelligence research. We argue that both fields can benefit from each other. As an example of this mutual benefit we discuss the relation between Inductive-Statistical Reasoning and Default Logic. One of the main topics in AI research is the study of common-sense reasoning with incomplete information. Default logic is especially developed to formalise this type of reasoning. We show that there is a striking resemblance between inductive-statistical reasoning and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Maximal specificity and lawlikeness in probabilistic explanation.Carl Gustav Hempel - 1968 - Philosophy of Science 35 (2):116-133.
    The article is a reappraisal of the requirement of maximal specificity (RMS) proposed by the author as a means of avoiding "ambiguity" in probabilistic explanation. The author argues that RMS is not, as he had held in one earlier publication, a rough substitute for the requirement of total evidence, but is independent of it and has quite a different rationale. A group of recent objections to RMS is answered by stressing that the statistical generalizations invoked in probabilistic explanations must be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   54 citations