Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-gcwzt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T12:42:56.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure of Physical Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John Forge
John Forge*
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some features of physical science relevant for a discussion of physical explanation are mentioned. The D-N account of physical explanation is discussed, and it is seen to restrict the scope of explanation in physical science because it imposes the requirement that the explanandum must be deducible from the explanans. Analysis shows that an alternative view of scientific explanation, called the instance view, allows a wider range of physical explanations. The view is seen to be free from a certain class of counter examples to the D-N theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 203 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1980

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

†

I am indebted to John Bishop, Peter Burton, Barbara Davidson, Jim McKenzie and especially to this journal's anonymous referee for comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Bunge, M. (1967), Foundations of Physics. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (1973), Philosophy of Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, H. C. and Lazera, V. A. (1973), “Realist Foundations of Measurement,” Philosophy of Science, 40: 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberle, R., Kaplan, D. and Montague, R. (1961), “Hempel and Oppenheim on Explanation,” Philosophy of Science, 28: 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P. (1965), “Studies in the Logic of Explanation,” reprinted in C. G. Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, pp. 245–260.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), “Aspects of Scientific Explanation,” in C. G. Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, pp. 331–496.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1961), “Explanation Revisited,” Philosophy of Science 28: 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, A. R. (1970), Dealing with Data. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Margenau, H. (1950), The Nature of Physical Reality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
McWeeny, R. and Sutcliffe, B. T. (1969), Methods of Molecular Quantum Mechanics. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Omer, I. A. (1970), “On the D-N Model of Scientific Explanation,” Philosophy of Science 37: 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilar, F. L. (1968), Elementary Quantum Chemistry. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1978), “Why ask,”Why?“?: An Inquiry Concerning Scientific Explanation,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 51: 683–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneed, J. D. (1971), The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, D. A. (1974), “The Quartercentenary Model of D-N Explanation,” Philosophy of Science 41: 188–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittaker, E. T. (1944), A Treatise on the Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies. 4th edition. New York: Dover.Google Scholar