Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:18:16.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanatory Asymmetries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

James Woodward
James Woodward*
Affiliation:
Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines a recent attempt by Evan Jobe to account for the asymmetric character of many scientific explanations. It is argued that a purported counterexample to Jobe's account, from Clark Glymour, is inconclusive, but that the account faces independent objections. It is also suggested, contrary to Jobe, that the explanatory relation is not always asymmetric.

Sometimes a singular sentence C can figure in a DN derivation of another singular sentence E and E can also figure in a DN derivation of C. Yet while we are inclined to regard the first derivation as an explanation of E, we are not inclined to regard the second derivation as an explanation of C. As Sylvain Bromberger pointed out in a now classic article (1966), one can explain the period of a pendulum by reference to its length and yet, although one can give a DN derivation of the length of a pendulum by reference to its period, this derivation does not seem to represent an explanation.

Evan Jobe has recently offered an interesting account of such explanatory asymmetries and Clark Glymour has in turn proposed a counterexample which seems to show that Jobe's account is defective. The aim of this paper is twofold. I shall attempt to show that (a) Glymour's proposed counterexample can be rejected on the grounds that it violates an independently plausible restriction on the role that equalities may play in DN explanation, and that (b) although Glymour's counterexample can be avoided in this way, Jobe's account is defective in several other respects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1984 , pp. 421 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

Footnotes

†

Portions of this paper were written while I was a visiting fellow at the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh during Spring, 1983. I am grateful to the Center and the University of Pittsburgh for their support. I would also like to thank Robert Causey, Clark Glymour, Evan Jobe, and an anonymous referee for Philosophy of Science for very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Anderson, James. (1967), Principles of Relativity Physics. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodbeck, May. (1966), “Methodological Individualisms: Definition and Reduction”, in Philosophical Analysis and History, Dray, W. (ed.). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain. (1966), “Why Questions”, in University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science 30. Colodny, R. (ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Causey, Robert. (1977), The Unity of Science. Dordecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert. (1972), The Meaning of Relativity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, Clark. (1978), “Two Flagpoles are More Paradoxical Than One”, Philosophy of Science 45: 118–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, Clark. (1980), “Explanations, Tests, Unity and Necessity”, Nous 14: 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl. (1965), “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”, in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Jobe, Evan. (1977), “A Puzzle Concerning DN Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 43: 542–49.Google Scholar
Rindler, Wolfgang. (1977), Essential Relativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert. (1977), Models of Man. Dordecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Sklar, Lawrence. (1974), Space, Time and Spacetime. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. (1979), “Scientific Explanation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30: 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. (1980), “Developmental Explanation”, Synthese 44: 443–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar