Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
I 23
Explanation/FraassenVsReichenbach: the unlimited demand for explanation leads to the demand of hidden variables.
I 25
Explanation: if mere regularity makes a macroscopic theory poor, then the same happens to a microscopic one - coincidence: also coincidence can have an explanation.
I 39
Explanation/FraassenVsAugustinus: the fleeing of the mouse from the cat must not be explained by perception.
But with Darwin: the fleeing mice survive. There is no account by reason. Analogously it applies that the successful sciences survive - without this having to be explained.
I 86
Theory/Explanation: For example, one could have two types of mechanics, one for physiologies and one for astronomers.
Problem: one cannot explain a complex phenomenon with this - e.g. man who is walking on the moon - if both theories have no common models, a new theory on lunar gravitation must be established - empirical adequacy: requires the integration of these "mini-theories".
I 87
Explanation: if we consider some kind of questions to be more important, this is no reason to believe that the theory that explains them is more probable - however, the social situation of the researcher plays a role in the evaluation of theories. >Evaluation.
I 93
Explanation/Ernest Nagel: explanation is the organization and classification of our knowledge - FraassenVsFeyerabend: he misunderstood the fact: that this is a function of interests - FraassenVsFeyerabend: then one can stop to research if one believes, what one says - naive view of scientific security - then the scientists ought to swear by an oath that they are looking for explanations -FraassVsFeyerabend: in reality one must always doubt the adequacy.
I 97f
Explanation/FraassenVsTradition: explanation does not have to be true!
a) "we have an explanation" (has to do with acceptance)
b) "the theory explains" (without acceptance) - e.g. Newton's theory was wrong nevertheless it explains much.
((s) then a theory cannot be a conjunction of sentences, for then no sentence may be false.)
Harman: Explanation leads to acceptance. >Acceptability.
Explanation/Fraassen: something does not require that theory coincides with the world as a whole.
I 98
One cannot assert the truth of a theory before its explanatory power - Explanation: is not an additional property for empirical adequacy - e.g. "the computer computes" - no one would say "the hammer struck the nail".
I 106
Explanation/VsHempel/Morton Beckner: e.g. evolution is not deterministic - e.g. the giraffes's neck is not determined by dietary scarcity - only by the compatibility of genetic and natural selection mechanisms - Putnam: also Newton's explanation is no deduction, but a demonstration of compatibilities.
I 110
Definition Explanation/Friedman: S explains P iff P is a consequence S which is "relative" to K and S "reduces" or "unifies" the set of its own consequences relative to K.
I 111
Explanation: Problem: Incompleteness: disease explains a rare secondary disease that is triggered by it - but not why this patient is affected.
Asymmetry: e.g. length of the shadow: is always in relation with a certain sun position.
Causation: only goes in one direction. >Causation, >Equations, >Asymmetry.
I 111
Why question: does not occur when the spectrum is explained by the atomic structure.
I 124
Explanation: has to do with "why" - to find prominent factors in the causal network.
Problem: the network as a whole does not explain typical cases - science, however, describes the network - ((s) therefore science does not equal an explanation. Explanation must at least say that there is a structure that can be described in principle - though never fully.)
Cf. >Network/Quine.
I 146
Explanation: for evaluating a response to a why question as an explanation, it is not a matter of whether this is true - the evaluation uses only the part of the background information that provides the general theory about these phenomena plus additional information that does not include the facts to be explained - ((s) e.g. framework conditions). >Reference frame.
I 155
Explanation/Description/Fractions: explanation and description do not differ in the information - but explanation: is a three-digit relation theory-fact-context - description: is two-digit: theory-fact - Explanation: is an applied science (not pure science).
I 205
Explanation/Thomas Aquinas/Fraassen: everything that is explained must be explained by something else.
I 206
The premises must contain more than the conclusion - in addition: generalization: e.g. that all magnets attract iron. >Generalization.
I 213
Explanation/Fraassen: only observable regularities require explanation. >Regularities, >Observability.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.