We Need Non-Factive Metaphysical Explanation

Erkenntnis:1-21 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Suppose that A explains B. Do A and B need to be true? Provided that we have metaphysical explanation in mind, orthodoxy answers “yes:” metaphysical explanation is factive. This article introduces and defends a non-factive notion of metaphysical explanation. I argue that we need a non-factive notion of explanation in order to make sense of explanationist arguments where we motivate a view by claiming that it offers better explanations than its competitors. After presenting and rejecting some initially plausible rivals, I account for non-factive metaphysical explanation by drawing on existing applications of structural equation models to metaphysical grounding.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BERWNN
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-02-11
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-02-11

Total views
293 ( #22,853 of 64,188 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
65 ( #10,938 of 64,188 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.