INTERVENCE SCIENTIFICALLY IN YOUR WHY QUESTIONS
This argues that the notion of explanation relevant to the philosophy of science is that of an answer to a why-question. Point of view of this is it surveys most of the historically important theories of explanation. Hempel’s deductive-nomological, and inductive-statistical, models of explanation required explanations to cite laws. Many philosophers reject causal theories of explanation now, because they think that there are non-causal explanations. I thought scientific explanation is a topic that needed to be discussed.
A scientific explanation is a way of explaining something we see in the natural world that's based on observations and measurements. We evaluate scientific explanations by comparing it to the current evidence and looking at what predictions it makes about the world.
EXPLANATION VS CONFIRMATION
Confirmation involves providing reasons to believe that (or evidence that) certain claims are true. Specially in scientific theories. Explanation involves answering questions like “Why or how is it the case that X?”, where “X” is assumed to be true (in the context C in which the question is asked).
Here are some intuitive examples which should illustrate the diffrrences between explanation and confirmation.
• A falling barometer may confirm an approaching cold front, but it does not explain why the cold front is approaching.
• The length of a shadow (cast by a flagpole of a certain height) may confirm the sun’s position in the sky, but it does not explain it.
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION AND WHY QUESTION
Many scientific explanations are requested by means of why-questions, and even when the request is not actually formulated in that way, it can often be translated into a why-question. For example, "What caused the Chernobyl accident?" or "For what reason did the Chernobyl accident occur?" are equivalent to "Why did the Chernobyl accident occur?" However, not all why-questions are requests for scientific explanations.
DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION
Deduction is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises. If a beverage is defined as "drinkable through a straw," one could use deduction to determine soup to be a beverage. Induction is making an inference based on an observation, often of a sample. These two methods of reasoning have a very different “feel” to them when you're conducting research. Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses.
Deduction
Deduction is generally defined as "the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning." Its specific meaning in logic is "inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises." Simply put, deduction is the formation of a conclusion based on generally accepted statements or facts. It occurs when you are planning out trips, for instance. Deductive reasoning always follows necessarily from general or universal premises.
Ex: Say you have a 8 a.m. appointment with the dentist and you know that it takes 30 minutes to drive from your house to the dentist's. From those two facts, you deduce that you will have to leave your house at 6:30, at the latest, to be at the dentist's on time.
Induction
Induction is a method of reasoning involving an element of probability. In logic, induction refers specifically to "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances." In other words, it means forming a generalization based on what is known or observed. Induction is at play here since your reasoning is based on an observation of a small group, as opposed to universal premises.
Ex: At lunch you observe 4 of your 6 coworkers ordering the same sandwich. From your observation, you then induce that the sandwich is probably good and you decide to try it yourself.
THE DEDUCTIVE-NOMOLOGICAL MODEL
1. A scientific explanation must be a deductively valid argument.
2. The explanans must contain essentially at least one (nomological) general lawlike sentence.
3. The explanans must have empirical content (contrast with “pure mathematical explanation” which we will not be discussing).
4. The sentences constituting the explanans must be true. These conditions allow for the case in which a less general “law” (Kepler’s) is explained (subsumed) by more general laws (Newton’s).
CONCLUSION
The scientific explanation is a way of obtaining information, or knowledge, about the world. Theoretically, the same knowledge will be obtained by everybody who asks the same questions and uses the same investigative method. Scientific explanation uses theories, deductive and inductive logic, and empirical observation to determine what is true and what is false.
REFFERENCES: Salmon, M.H. and Glymour, C., 1999. Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Hackett Publishing, https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com, http://fitelson.org, https://www.merriam-webster.com
Comments
Post a Comment