The nature and norms of scientific explanation: Some preliminaries

Main Article Content

Abel Peña
Cory Wright

Abstract

There are at least two deep and related debates about explanation: about its nature and about its norms. The aim of this special issue of Philosophical Problems in Science/Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce (ZFN) is to survey whether or not a consensus is at hand in these debates and to help settle what it can. The overarching foci are twofold: (i) the nature of scientific explanation, with special attention to the debate between ontic and epistemic conception of explanation, and (ii) the norms of scientific explanation, with special attention to so-called ‘ontic’ (or better, ‘alethic’) norms like truth and referential success and epistemic norms like intelligibility and idealized understanding. It called for advocates of various conceptions to articulate the current state of these debates. Researchers and scholars from around the globe—including Poland, Canada, Korea, The Netherlands, the United States, Greece, Austria, and Belgium—contributed. The special issue also attempts to provide an opening for new work on the norms of explanation, such as truth or model-based accuracy, information compression, abstraction, and generalization.

Article Details

How to Cite
Peña, A., & Wright, C. (2024). The nature and norms of scientific explanation: Some preliminaries. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne W Nauce), (74), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.59203/zfn.74.690
Section
Editorial

References

Bokulich, A., 2016. Fiction as a vehicle for truth: Moving beyond the ontic conception. The Monist, 99(3), pp.260–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onw004.

Chwistek, L., 1932. Tragedia werbalnej metafizyki (Z powodu książki Dra Ingardena: Das literarische Kunstwerk). Kwartalnik Filozoficzny, 10, pp.46–76.

Chwistek, L., 2017. The tragedy of verbal metaphysics: On Dr. Ingarden’s Das literarische Kunstwerk (A. Trybus, Trans.). Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 5(1), pp.1–20. https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v5i1.2957.

Craver, C.F., 2007. Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Eck, D., 2015. Reconciling ontic and epistemic constraints on mechanistic explanation, epistemically. Axiomathes, 25, pp.5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-014-9243-x.

van Eck, D. and Wright, C., 2021. Mechanist idealisation in systems biology. Synthese, 199(1), pp.1555–1575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02816-8.

Elliott, S., 2021. Research problems. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(4), pp.1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz052.

Faye, J., 1999. Explanation explained. Synthese, 120(1), pp.61–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005258504182.

Faye, J., 2007. The Pragmatic-Rhetorical Theory of Explanation. In: J. Persson and Petri Ylikoski, eds. Rethinking Explanation, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 252. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp.43–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5581-2_4.

Forge, J., 1998. Explanation and mechanism: reflections on the ontic conception of explanation. In: D. Anapolitanos, A. Baltas and S. Tsinorema, eds. Philosophy and the Many Faces of Science, CPS publications in philosophy of science. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield, pp.76–92.

Hempel, C.G., 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press.

Jenkins, C.S., 2008. Romeo, René, and the reasons why: What explanation is. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 108(1), pp.61–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2008.00236.x.

Kitcher, P., 2023. What’s the Use of Philosophy? Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Koertge, N., 1992. Explanation and its problems. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43(1), pp.85–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/43.1.85.

Laudan, L., 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.

Levenstein, D. and et al., 2024. The problem-ladenness of theory [in press]. Computation Brain and Behavior.

Mantzavinos, C., 2016. Explanatory Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316440599.

Salmon, W.C., 1984. Scientific explanation: Three basic conceptions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, (2), pp.293–305. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1984.2.192510.

Salmon, W.C., 1989. Four decades of scientific explanation. In: P. Kitcher and W.C. Salmon, eds. Scientific Explanation, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.3–219. Available at: <http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/185700> [visited on 4 October 2023].

Scheffler, I., 1963. The Anatomy of Inquiry: Philosophical Studies in the Theory of Science, Borzoi Books in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Alfred. A. Knopf.

Scriven, M., 1962. Explanations, predictions, and laws. In: H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, eds. Scientific explanation, space, and time. Preliminaries, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.170–230. Available at: <http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/184631> [visited on 8 February 2024].

Wright, C. and van Eck, D., 2018. Reconciling ontic and epistemic constraints on mechanistic explanation, epistemically. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 5(38). https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0005.038.