Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-02T06:23:18.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Unification Is Neither Necessary Nor Sufficient for Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Victor Gijsbers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that unification is neither necessary nor sufficient for explanation. Focusing on the versions of the unificationist theory of explanation of Kitcher and of Schurz and Lambert, I establish three theses. First, Kitcher's criterion of unification is vitiated by the fact that it entails that every proposition can be explained by itself, a flaw that it is unable to overcome. Second, because neither Kitcher's theory nor that of Schurz and Lambert can solve the problems of asymmetry and accidental generalizations, it follows that unification is not sufficient to ground explanation. Third, some good explanations are disunifying, which entails that unification is not necessary for explanation either.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 481 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

References

Armstrong, David (1991), “What Makes Induction Rational?”, What Makes Induction Rational? 30:503–511.Google Scholar
Barnes, Eric (1992), “Explanatory Unification and the Problem of Asymmetry”, Explanatory Unification and the Problem of Asymmetry 59:558–571.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred (1977), “Laws of Nature”, Laws of Nature 44:248–268.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, Explanation and Scientific Understanding 71:5–19.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl, and Oppenheim, Paul (1948), “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”, Studies in the Logic of Explanation 15:135–175.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1981), “Explanatory Unification”, Explanatory Unification 48:507–531.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1985), “Two Approaches to Explanation”, Two Approaches to Explanation 82:632–639.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Kitcher, Philip and Salmon, Wesley C. (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 410–505.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis (2002), Causation and Explanation. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schurz, Gerhard (1991), “Relevant Deduction: From Solving Paradoxes towards a General Theory”, Relevant Deduction: From Solving Paradoxes towards a General Theory 35:391–437.Google Scholar
Schurz, Gerhard (1999), “Explanation as Unification”, Explanation as Unification 120:95–114.Google Scholar
Schurz, Gerhard, and Lambert, Karel (1994), “Outline of a Theory of Scientific Understanding”, Outline of a Theory of Scientific Understanding 101:65–120.Google Scholar
Strevens, Michael (2004), “The Casual and Unification Approaches to Explanation Unified—Causally”, The Casual and Unification Approaches to Explanation Unified—Causally 38:154–176.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (2003), “Scientific Explanation”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2003 ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/scientific-explanation/.Google Scholar