Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. The Quartercentenary Model of D–N Explanation.D. A. Thorpe - 1974 - Philosophy of Science 41 (2):188-195.
    This paper presents a new formal model for D–N explanation that gives intuitive criteria of acceptability, avoids the known trivializations, and links explanation with confirmation theory. Although set in the twenty-five year tradition of attempts to formalize D–N explanation, it proposes a new direction for the model that is to be distinguished from the syntactical and informational approaches by its introduction of restrictions which derive from the use which the D–N model can have in hypothesis testing. This model, illustrating the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • On the logical conditions of deductive explanation.Jaegwon Kim - 1963 - Philosophy of Science 30 (3):286-291.
    Hempel and Oppenheim have stated in Part III of their paper “Studies in the Logic of Explanation” [2] a set of conditions for deductive explanation. However, their analysis has come under damaging systematic criticisms in a recent paper by Eberle, Kaplan and Montague [1], The principal aim of the present paper is to review the Hempel-Oppenheim analysis and propose a strengthened version of it that avoids the recent criticisms.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • (1 other version)Studies in the logic of explanation.Carl Gustav Hempel & Paul Oppenheim - 1948 - Philosophy of Science 15 (2):135-175.
    To explain the phenomena in the world of our experience, to answer the question “why?” rather than only the question “what?”, is one of the foremost objectives of all rational inquiry; and especially, scientific research in its various branches strives to go beyond a mere description of its subject matter by providing an explanation of the phenomena it investigates. While there is rather general agreement about this chief objective of science, there exists considerable difference of opinion as to the function (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   709 citations  
  • Hempel and Oppenheim on explanation.Rolf Eberle, David Kaplan & Richard Montague - 1961 - Philosophy of Science 28 (4):418-428.
    Hempel and Oppenheim, in their paper 'The Logic of Explanation', have offered an analysis of the notion of scientific explanation. The present paper advances considerations in the light of which their analysis seems inadequate. In particular, several theorems are proved with roughly the following content: between almost any theory and almost any singular sentence, certain relations of explainability hold.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  • (1 other version)Studies in the Logic of Explanation.Carl Hempel & Paul Oppenheim - 1948 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 14 (2):133-133.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   531 citations  
  • Deductive explanation of scientific laws.Raimo Tuomela - 1972 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 1 (3/4):369 - 392.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • On the d-n model of scientific explanation.I. A. Omer - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (3):417-433.
    This paper discusses the D-N model of scientific explanation. It is suggested that explanation is a part of assertive discourse where certain principles must be observed. Then use is made of the relation between the informative content and logical content of a sentence (as shown, for instance, by Popper) to draw some of the conditions necessary for a sound model. It is claimed that the conditions of the model proposed in the present paper exhaust the insights of the papers in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • On two proposed models of explanation.Charles G. Morgan - 1972 - Philosophy of Science 39 (1):74-81.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Omer on scientific explanation.Charles G. Morgan - 1973 - Philosophy of Science 40 (1):110-117.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Kim on deductive explanation.Charles G. Morgan - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (3):434-439.
    In [2] Hempel and Oppenheim give a definition of “explanation” for a certain formal language. In [1] Eberle, Kaplan, and Montague prove five theorems demonstrating that the Hempel and Oppenheim definition is not restrictive enough. In [3] Kim proposes two further conditions to supplement the Hempel and Oppenheim definition in order to avoid the objections posed in [1]. In this paper it is shown that the definition of Hempel and Oppenheim supplemented by Kim's conditions is open to a trivialization very (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • On Omer's model of scientific explanation.Seppo K. Miettinen - 1972 - Philosophy of Science 39 (2):249-251.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Deductive scientific explanation.Robert Ackermann - 1965 - Philosophy of Science 32 (2):155-167.
    In this paper, I shall examine attempts to furnish formal models for deductive scientific explanation. All such attempts have had certain defects. The most serious of these defects is to be found in the fact that the extant models seem to be formally restrictive in ways that do not allow any obvious generalization of their conditions which will encompass the full range of all those scientific explanations which must be considered plausible candidates for translation into deductive models.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • (1 other version)Discussion: A corrected model of explanation.Robert J. Ackermann - 1966 - Philosophy of Science 33 (1/2):168.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations