PHI 30 Lecture 4: Salmon_Notes pt.1
Document Summary
Salmon presents argument for why hempel"s covering law model doesn"t work. Covering law models your explanandum is covered by some law: dn (deductive-nominological) model old consensus of explanation. Explanans is valid deductive argument where conclusion is your explanandum. Premises must include at least one law: is (inductive-statistical) model. Explanations recognized as being probabilistic or statistical. Subsuming inductively under statistical laws: both models. Event to be explained was to be expected by virtue of certain explanatory facts (laws and initial conditions) Explanation/prediction symmetry thesis explanation and prediction arise from same laws and initial conditions to explain event. Premises 1 is consistent with premises 2. Explanandum 1 is inconsistent with explanandum 2. Thursday, january 21, 2016 inconsistency calls into question logic of entire analysis. Hempel"s solution 1 requirement of maximal speci city explanans must include all available relevant evidence. Won"t allow for incompatible explanandum because add more relevant information to clear up incompatibility.
