Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T09:04:11.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probabilistic Explanations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

James H. Fetzer
James H. Fetzer*
Affiliation:
New College of the University of South Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hanna (l981) and Humphreys (1981) have offered criticisms which tend to undermine the plausibility of the single-case propensity account of probabilistic explanation advanced in Fetzer (1974) and (1981a). Hanna contends that, on single-case criteria, there typically are no unique single-case propensity values to assign to the occurrence of particular explanandum-events because the propensities for these outcomes to occur are continuously evolving over time (yielding “the temporal relativity of probabilistic explanations”), while Humphreys suggests that, whether or not unique single-case probability values happen to be available at all, they are nevertheless incidental and dispensable elements of otherwise potentially acceptable explanatory accounts. Indeed, Humphreys and Railton (1978) and (l981) appear to converge in common agreement on the inessential function of single-case probability assignments within the context of probabilistic explanations.

Type
Part IV. Probabilistic Explanation
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 194 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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.)

References

Fetzer, J.H. (1974). “A Single Case Propensity Theory of Explanation.” Synthese 28: 171-198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J.H. (1977). “Reichenbaeh, Reference Classes, and Single Case ‘Probabilities’.” Synthese 34: 185-217, (As reprinted in Salmon, W.C. (ed.). Hans Reichenbach: Logical Empiricist. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1979. Pages 187-219.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J.H. (1981a). “Probability and Explanation.” Synthese 48: 371-408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J.H. (1981b). Scientific Knowledge. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J.F. (1981). “Single Case Propensities and the Explanation of Particular Events.” Synthese 48: 409-436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J.F. (1983). “Probabilistic Explanation and Probabilistic Causality.” In PSA 1982, Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Nickles, T.. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 181-193.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G. (1968). “Maximal Specificity and Lawlikeness in Probabilistic Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 35: 116-133.Google Scholar
Humphreys, P. (1981). “Aleatory Explanations.” Synthese 48: 225-232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, P. (1983). “Aleatory Explanations Expanded.” In PSA 1982. Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Nickles, T.. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 208-223.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1980). “A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance.” In Ifs. (University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Volume 15.) Edited by Harper, W. et al. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 267-297.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1981). “ Statistical Explanation Reconsidered.” Synthese 48: 437-472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1982). “Statistical Explanation.” In Contemporary Philosophy: A Hew Survey, Volume 2. Edited by Fløistad, G.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Pages 157-187.Google Scholar
Railton, P. (1978). “A Deductive-Nomological Model of Probabilistic Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 45: 206-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, P. (1981). “Probability, Explanation, and Information.” Synthese 48: 233-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar