Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-vpjdr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-21T06:10:33.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanation Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

David Kaplan
David Kaplan*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In ‘Hempel and Oppenheim on Explanation’, (see preceding article) Eberle, Kaplan, and Montague criticize the analysis of explanation offered by Hempel and Oppenheim in their ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’. These criticisms are shown to be related to the fact that Hempel and Oppenheim's analysis fails to satisfy simultaneously three newly proposed criteria of adequacy for any analysis of explanation. A new analysis is proposed which satisfies these criteria and thus is immune to the criticisms brought against the earlier analysis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 1961 , pp. 429 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

This paper was prepared for publication while the author was a Graduate Fellow of the National Science Foundation.

References

[1] Eberle, R., Kaplan, D., Montague, R., ‘Hempel and Oppenheim on Explanation’, in the present issue of this journal.Google Scholar
[2] Hempel, C. G., Oppenheim, P., ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’, Philosophy of Science, 15 (1948), pp. 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Hilbert, D., Bernays, P., Grundlagen der Mathematik, 2 (Berlin, 1939), p. 32.Google Scholar