Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-wr4x4 Total loading time: 0.264 Render date: 2023-01-31T00:41:26.150Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Studies in the Logic of Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Carl G. Hempel
Queens College, Flushing, N. Y.
Paul Oppenheim
Princeton, N. J.


To explain the phenomena in the world of our experience, to answer the question “why?” rather than only the question “what?”, is one of the foremost objectives of all rational inquiry; and especially, scientific research in its various branches strives to go beyond a mere description of its subject matter by providing an explanation of the phenomena it investigates. While there is rather general agreement about this chief objective of science, there exists considerable difference of opinion as to the function and the essential characteristics of scientific explanation. In the present essay, an attempt will be made to shed some light on these issues by means of an elementary survey of the basic pattern of scientific explanation and a subsequent more rigorous analysis of the concept of law and of the logical structure of explanatory arguments.

Research Article
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1948

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.)



This paper represents the outcome of a series of discussions among the authors; their individual contributions cannot be separated in detail. The technical developments contained in Part IV, however, are due to the first author, who also put the article into its final form.

Some of the ideas presented in Part II were suggested by our common friend, Kurt Grelling, who, together with his wife, became a victim of Nazi terror during the war. Those ideas were developed by Grelling, in a discussion by correspondence with the present authors, of emergence and related concepts. By including at least some of that material, which is indicated in the text, in the present paper, we feel that we are realizing the hope expressed by Grelling that his contributions might not entirely fall into oblivion.

We wish to express our thanks to Dr. Rudolf Carnap, Dr. Herbert Feigl, Dr. Nelson Goodman, and Dr. W. V. Quine for stimulating discussions and constructive criticism.


Throughout the article, the abbreviated titles in brackets are used for referenceGoogle Scholar
Beard, Charles A., and Hook, Sidney. [Terminology] Problems of terminology in historical writing. Chapter IV of Theory and practice in historical study: A report of the Committee on Historiography. Social Science Research Council, New York, 1946.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Gustav. [Emergence] Holism, historicism, and emergence. Philosophy of Science, vol. 11 (1944), pp. 209221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonfante, G. [Semantics] Semantics, language. An article in Harriman, P. L., ed., The encyclopedia of psychology. Philosophical Library, New York, 1946.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. [Mind] The mind and its place in nature. New York, 1925.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. [Semantics] Introduction to semantics. Harvard University Press, 1942.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. [Inductive Logic] On inductive logic. Philosophy of science, vol 12 (1945), pp. 7297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. [Concepts] The two concepts of probability. Philosophy and phenomenological research, vol. 5 (1945), pp. 513532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. [Remarks] Remarks on induction and truth. Philosophy and phenomenological research, vol. 6 (1946), pp. 590602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. [Application] On the application of inductive logic. Philosophy and phenomenological research, vol. 8 (1947), pp. 133147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick M. [Conditional] The contrary-to-fact conditional. Mind, vol. 55 (1946), pp. 289307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, Alonzo. [Logic] Logic, formal. An article in Runes, Dagobert D., ed. The dictionary of philosophy. Philosophical Library, New York, 1942.Google Scholar
Ducasse, C. J. [Explanation] Explanation, mechanism, and teleology. The journal of philosophy, vol. 22 (1925), pp. 150155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. [Operationism] Operationism and scientific method. Psychological review, vol. 52 (1945), pp. 250259 and 284288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. [Query] A query on confirmation. The journal of philosophy, vol. 43 (1946), pp. 383385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. [Counterfactuals]. The problem of counterfactual conditionals. The journal of philosophy, vol. 44 (1947), pp. 113128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. [Infirmities] On infirmities of confirmation theory. Philosophy and phenomenological research, vol. 8 (1947), pp. 149151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grelling, Kurt and Oppenheim, Paul. [Gestaltbegriff] Der Gestaltbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik. Erkenntnis, vol. 7 (1937-38), pp. 211225 and 357359.Google Scholar
Grelling, Kurt and Oppenheim, Paul. [Functional Whole] Logical Analysis of “Gestalt” as “Functional whole”. Preprinted for distribution at Fifth Internat. Congress for the Unity of Science, Cambridge, Mass., 1939.Google Scholar
Helmer, Olaf and Oppenheim, Paul. [Probability] A syntactical definition of probability and of degree of confirmation. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 10 (1945), pp. 2560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. [Laws] The function of general laws in history. The journal of philosophy, vol. 39 (1942), pp. 3548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. [Studies] Studies in the logic of confirmation. Mind, vol. 54 (1945); Part I: pp. 126, Part II: pp. 97121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. and Oppenheim, Paul. [Degree] A definition of “degree of confirmation”. Philosophy of science, vol. 12 (1945), pp. 98115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henle, Paul. [Emergence] The status of emergence. The journal of philosophy, vol. 39 (1942), pp. 486493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hospers, John. [Explanation] On explanation. The journal of philosophy, vol. 43 (1946), pp. 337356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, Clark L. [Variables] The problem of intervening variables in molar behavior theory. Psychological review, vol. 50 (1943), pp. 273291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, Clark L. [Principles] Principles of behavior. New York, 1943.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. Stanley. [Principles] The principles of science. London, 1924. (1st ed. 1874).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Felix. [Methodology] Methodology of the social sciences. New York, 1944.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank H. [Limitations] The limitations of scientific method in economics. In Tugwell, R., ed., The trend of economics. New York, 1924.Google Scholar
Koch, Sigmund. [Motivation] The logical character of the motivation concept. Psychological review, vol. 48 (1941). Part I: pp. 1538, Part II: pp. 127154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langford, C. H. [Review] Review in The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 6 (1941), pp. 6768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. I. [Analysis] An analysis of knowledge and valuation. La Salle, Ill., 1946.Google Scholar
McKinsey, J. C. C. [Review] Review of Helmer and Oppenheim, [Probability]. Mathematical reviews, vol. 7 (1946), p. 45.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. [Logic] A system of Logic.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. Lloyd. Emergent evolution, New York, 1923.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. Lloyd. The emergence of novelty. New York, 1933.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. [Forschung] Logik der Forschung. Wien, 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. [Society] The open society and its enemies. London, 1945.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. [Logic] Elements of symbolic logic. New York, 1947.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. [Quantum mechanics] Philosophic foundations of quantum mechanics. University of California Press, 1944.Google Scholar
Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., and Bigelow, J. [Teleology] Behavior, Purpose, and Teleology. Philosophy of science, vol. 10 (1943), pp. 1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stace, W. T. [Novelty] Novelty, indeterminism and emergence. Philosophical review, vol. 48 (1939), pp. 296310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. [Truth] The semantical conception of truth, and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and phenomenological research, vol. 4 (1944), pp. 341376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, Edward Chase. [Behavior] Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York 1932.Google Scholar
White, Morton G. [Explanation] Historical explanation. Mind, vol. 52 (1943), pp. 212229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodger, J. H. [Principles] Biological principles. New York, 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilsel, Edgar. [Empiricism] Problems of empiricism. In International encyclopedia of unified science, vol. II, no. 8. The University of Chicago Press, 1941.Google Scholar
Zilsel, Edgar. [Laws] Physics and the problem of historico-sociological laws. Philosophy of science, vol. 8 (1941), pp. 567579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Studies in the Logic of Explanation
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Studies in the Logic of Explanation
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Studies in the Logic of Explanation
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *