..., of the covering las relied on in explanations have thesame logical form as universal syllogistic premises, ho do covering la explanations differ from syllogistic explanations By content and aim. The valide explanation should have a valide logical structure. hy there can be no scientific explanations that have a syllogistic logical structure THE PARTIAL REVIE OF HINTIKKA AND HALONEN TOARD A THEORY OF THE PROCESS OF EXPLANATIONInstead, Hertz started from something that is not typically emphasized or even mentioned in covering la accounts of explanation. It is hat e have called the background theory. In Hertzs case, it consists of Maxells equations.From them Hertz deducedho ave-like electromagnetic disturbances are propagated.You see, somebody deduced something from equations. Equations contains equalities quantities, addings, subtractings, fractions, multiplications etc. of quantities, NOT TRUTH VALUES. The mathematical equality is a quantitative equality. A pure equation has a pure mathematical structure, not a logical one. Having a mathematical structure it cannot substantiate a deduction, cause the deduction has logical nature. Conclusion The mathematical consequences should be distinguished from the logical ones. nu ma lasa sa...plecScientific las, but alone theories, are rarely of the form of a general implication.Scientific theories are rarely in a pure logical form. That is hy, together ith the ad explanandum and explanandum they do not form a valide logical structure. Hoever, the gist of Hertzs explanation did not consist in the deduction of the explanandum from the propagation la plus initial conditions.Philosophy of science is not history of science. Philosophers of science are not interested of the individuality of a scientific explanation. An individual scientific explanation can be a very rong model. e are interested by the most intelligent, rational, adaptable, economic, pure, and perfect necessary and suficient model of the scientific explanation.A Regulative Ideal. e are not slavers of science... e should something to lead. e should propose the most rational, valide, economic, and intelligible model. Economic and intelligible to be very practicable.Valide to lead at truth. PARTIAL REVIE OF HINTIKKA AND HALONEN EXPLANATIONRETROSPECTIVE REFLECTIONS The explanatoriness of an explanation does not come from the background theory, but from the connection beteen A, T and D that the explanatory interpolation theorem brings out.The authors T is a background theory. That is, T can be a physical theory, a physical conditional, a causal generality. For instance, if salt is put in ater, then it ill undergo dissolvation or s Ds. No, this consequence can be necessary but is not a logical consequence. That is, it is not a necessary consequence of a logical structure as a is a logical consequence of the logical structure ab. That is, the authors mixes the logic ith physics, they do not observed that if T is physical conditional and A ould be the antecendent condition, then D ould be a causal consequence, not a logical consequence. T should transformed and reconstructed until ill become a logical truth or a logical implication and only then, if A constitute the antecedent of the logical implication, D ill follo as a logical consequence. The authors suposse logical dependencies beteen T, A, and D, but if T is not transformed, if T is only a causal conditional, then the relations beteen T, A, and D represent only causal or universal physical dependencies not logical implications.PARTIAL REVIE OF HINTIKKAHALLONENS EXPLANATION AS INTERPOLATIONA suitable interpolation formula I explains hy G follosfrom F by shoing ho the structures specified by F interact ith the structures specified by Gso as to make the consequence inevitable. ...In the general theory of explanation the interpolation theorem can thus be used insofar as the explanation of an event, say one described by E, can be thought of as depending on to different things, on the one hand on some given background theory and on the other hand on contingent ad hoc facts concerning the circumstances of E....Both the background theory and the contingent initial conditions specify a kind of structure. An explanation is an account of the interplayinterdependentabeteen these to structures.In explaining some particular event, say that Pb, e haveavailable to us some background theory T and certain facts A about the circumstances of theexplanandum.The process of explanation ill then consist of deducing the explanandum from T A.e see the authors pretend that to explain D is to deduce it from TATA has as a logical necessary consequence D. But T is not infrastructured. No, this is the form of the actual scientific explanations or their ideal Consider the explanation of aging in gerontology. Is there applied the authors model of explanation. They require only one background theory, but for the explanation of aging ere proposed hundreds of theories see Medvedes An attempt at a rational clasification of theories of aging, Biol. Rev., 65, 375-398, 1990.Most scientists consider that aging is,not as phenomenon, a result of a multiple caused process. Most of the theories of aging, if not all, have a causal form. Idealized a causal theory can have the form A causes B. But the things are very complex in the explanation of aging. There are there long causal chains in ich an effect can become a cause for other effect. Moreovere, syncronicaly can act many causes. The evolution of the process that result in aging is very complex. Not an animal, but even the changes of the life of a single cell ere not described and interpreted by the serious scientists. To explain the advancement of the aging process or time is a very hard thing hich cannot be reduced at the simple deduction of a D from TA. But, hoever, if e separe from the hole process only an atomic gerontological explanation, but hat in gerontology is atomic in physics can be very molecular, then e ill have there only a theory T and maybe some conditions A, then this atomic explanation ill have the form of authors explanation. Suposse that T has the form A causes B e.g., If the cells telomeres undergo the changing x, then the cell loss its replicative capacity. Is this logic Suposse another exemple, Salt decomposes in liquid ater, that is, if salt is put in liquit ater, then it ill undergo decomposition. The consequence is necessary, but is this logic The consequence is logical or causal, physical The consequence is in thanks to the logical structure Can Fx be logicaly true or false No. e sa a causal conditional or consequence. There can bephysical or causal necessary concesequences and necessary consequences of certain logical structure eg., if ab, then a. No, the authors rited that TA has as a logical consequence D, but their T can be a causal background theory or a physical theory, not a logical truth. But if T is a causal or physical conditional then the addition of A ill substant...
Download