Intelligibility is Necessary for Scientific Explanation, but Accuracy May Not Be

In Naomi Miyake, David Peebles & Richard Cooper (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society (2012)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Many philosophers of science believe that empirical psychology can contribute little to the philosophical investigation of explanations. They take this to be shown by the fact that certain explanations fail to elicit any relevant psychological events (e.g., familiarity, insight, intelligibility, etc.). We report results from a study suggesting that, at least among those with extensive science training, a capacity to render an event intelligible is considered a requirement for explanation. We also investigate for whom explanations must be capable of rendering events intelligible and whether or not accuracy is also viewed as a requirement.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2013-02-28
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Explaining the Brain.Craver, Carl F.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
323 ( #12,799 of 47,153 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
34 ( #23,196 of 47,153 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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