Explanation, confirmation, and Hempel's paradox

In Kevin McCain & Ted Poston (eds.), Best explanations: New essays on inference to the best explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 219-241 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Hempel’s Converse Consequence Condition (CCC), Entailment Condition (EC), and Special Consequence Condition (SCC) have some prima facie plausibility when taken individually. Hempel, though, shows that they have no plausibility when taken together, for together they entail that E confirms H for any propositions E and H. This is “Hempel’s paradox”. It turns out that Hempel’s argument would fail if one or more of CCC, EC, and SCC were modified in terms of explanation. This opens up the possibility that Hempel’s paradox can be solved by modifying one or more of CCC, EC, and SCC in terms of explanation. I explore this possibility by modifying CCC and SCC in terms of explanation and considering whether CCC and SCC so modified are correct. I also relate that possibility to Inference to the Best Explanation.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-07-26
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Laws and Symmetry.van Fraassen, Bas C.

View all 53 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
186 ( #22,267 of 48,898 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
39 ( #17,875 of 48,898 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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