Three conceptions of explaining how possibly - and one reductive account
Persson, Johannes LU
(2011)
EPSA 09: 2nd Conference of the European Philosophy of Science
In The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings
1.
p.275-286
- Abstract
- Philosophers of science have often favoured reductive approaches to how-possibly explanation. This article identifies three varieties of how-possibly explanation and, in so doing, helps to show that this form of explanation is a rich and interesting phenomenon
in its own right.
The first variety approaches “How is it possible that X?” by showing that, despite appearances, X is not ruled out by what was believed prior to X. This can sometimes be
achieved by removing misunderstandings about the implications of one’s belief system
(prior to observing X), but more often than not it involves a modification of this belief
system so that one’s acceptance of X does not generate a ... (More) - Philosophers of science have often favoured reductive approaches to how-possibly explanation. This article identifies three varieties of how-possibly explanation and, in so doing, helps to show that this form of explanation is a rich and interesting phenomenon
in its own right.
The first variety approaches “How is it possible that X?” by showing that, despite appearances, X is not ruled out by what was believed prior to X. This can sometimes be
achieved by removing misunderstandings about the implications of one’s belief system
(prior to observing X), but more often than not it involves a modification of this belief
system so that one’s acceptance of X does not generate a contradiction.
The second variety of how-possibly explanation offers a potential how-explanation of
X; it is usually followed by a range of further potential how-explanations of the same
phenomenon. In recent literature the factual claims implied by this sort of how-possibly
explanation have been downplayed, whereas the heuristic role of mapping the space of
conceptual possibilities has been emphasized. Below I will focus especially on this
truth-bracketing sense of potentiality when I look at this variety of explanation more
closely.
The third variety of how-possibly explanation has attracted less interest. It presents a
partial how-explanation of X, and typically it aims to establish the existence of a
mechanism by which X could be, and was, generated without filling in all the details. It
stands out as the natural alternative for advocates of ontic how-possibly explanation.
This article translates divisions like those evident in Salmon’s (1984) view that
explanation-concepts can be broadly divided into epistemic, modal, and ontic across to
the context of how-possibly explanations. Moreover, it is argued that each of the three
varieties of how-possibly explanation mentioned above has a place in science. That this
is so may be especially interesting to philosophers: we are often misled by the promises
made on behalf of various why-explanation accounts, and seem to have forgotten nearly
everything about the fruitful diversity of how-possibly explanations. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1712141
- author
- Persson, Johannes
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2011-09-26
- type
- Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- cause, explanation, mechanism, how-possibly explanation, how-explanation
- host publication
- EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009
- series title
- The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings
- editor
- de Regt, Henk ; Hartmann, Stephan and Okasha, Samir
- volume
- 1
- pages
- 275 - 286
- publisher
- Springer
- conference name
- EPSA 09: 2nd Conference of the European Philosophy of Science
- conference location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- conference dates
- 2009-10-21 - 2009-10-24
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000307264900024
- ISBN
- 978-94-007-2403-7
- 978-94-007-2404-4
- DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-007-2404-4_24
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, 2012, Volume 1 The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Theoretical Philosophy (015001002), The Vårdal Institute (016540000)
- id
- 48f2f285-38b6-41f7-b94d-dc057bdd33c4 (old id 1712141)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 10:04:30
- date last changed
- 2018-11-21 20:56:34
@inbook{48f2f285-38b6-41f7-b94d-dc057bdd33c4,
abstract = {{Philosophers of science have often favoured reductive approaches to how-possibly explanation. This article identifies three varieties of how-possibly explanation and, in so doing, helps to show that this form of explanation is a rich and interesting phenomenon<br/><br>
in its own right.<br/><br>
The first variety approaches “How is it possible that X?” by showing that, despite appearances, X is not ruled out by what was believed prior to X. This can sometimes be<br/><br>
achieved by removing misunderstandings about the implications of one’s belief system<br/><br>
(prior to observing X), but more often than not it involves a modification of this belief<br/><br>
system so that one’s acceptance of X does not generate a contradiction.<br/><br>
The second variety of how-possibly explanation offers a potential how-explanation of<br/><br>
X; it is usually followed by a range of further potential how-explanations of the same<br/><br>
phenomenon. In recent literature the factual claims implied by this sort of how-possibly<br/><br>
explanation have been downplayed, whereas the heuristic role of mapping the space of<br/><br>
conceptual possibilities has been emphasized. Below I will focus especially on this<br/><br>
truth-bracketing sense of potentiality when I look at this variety of explanation more<br/><br>
closely.<br/><br>
The third variety of how-possibly explanation has attracted less interest. It presents a<br/><br>
partial how-explanation of X, and typically it aims to establish the existence of a<br/><br>
mechanism by which X could be, and was, generated without filling in all the details. It<br/><br>
stands out as the natural alternative for advocates of ontic how-possibly explanation.<br/><br>
This article translates divisions like those evident in Salmon’s (1984) view that<br/><br>
explanation-concepts can be broadly divided into epistemic, modal, and ontic across to<br/><br>
the context of how-possibly explanations. Moreover, it is argued that each of the three<br/><br>
varieties of how-possibly explanation mentioned above has a place in science. That this<br/><br>
is so may be especially interesting to philosophers: we are often misled by the promises<br/><br>
made on behalf of various why-explanation accounts, and seem to have forgotten nearly<br/><br>
everything about the fruitful diversity of how-possibly explanations.}},
author = {{Persson, Johannes}},
booktitle = {{EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009}},
editor = {{de Regt, Henk and Hartmann, Stephan and Okasha, Samir}},
isbn = {{978-94-007-2403-7}},
keywords = {{cause; explanation; mechanism; how-possibly explanation; how-explanation}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{09}},
pages = {{275--286}},
publisher = {{Springer}},
series = {{The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings}},
title = {{Three conceptions of explaining how possibly - and one reductive account}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2404-4_24}},
doi = {{10.1007/978-94-007-2404-4_24}},
volume = {{1}},
year = {{2011}},
}