Re-re-reconciling the epistemic and ontic views of explanation: a reply to Wright and van Eck

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In a recent article published in Ergo and entitled "Ontic explanation is either ontic or explanatory, but not both," Cory Wright and Dingmar van Eck have sought to undermine any ontic approach to explanation, providing three arguments to show that an epistemic approach is "the only game in town." I show that each of their arguments is straightforwardly question-begging. For brevity, I make my counter-arguments by showing how the claims of Sheredos (2016)-whom Wright & van Eck cite as an ally-undermine each of their own arguments. The consumer update is: there is no new decisive argument against an ontic view, the epistemic view is not the only game in town, and reconciliation between the ontic and epistemic views remains possible.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2019-04-09
Latest version: 4 (2019-04-10)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Word and Object.Quine, Willard Van Orman
Word and Object.Johnstone, Henry W.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
104 ( #29,828 of 46,264 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
38 ( #21,863 of 46,264 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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