Why Unification Is Neither Necessary Nor Sufficient for Explanationby: Victor Gijsbers
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 74 (October 2007), pp. 481-500.
|
Reviews
[Write a review of this article]
There are no reviews of this article
Find related articles from these CiteULike users
Find related articles with these CiteULike tags
AbstractIn this paper, I argue that unification is neither necessary nor sufficient for explanation. Focusing on the versions of the unificationist theory of explanation of Kitcher and of Schurz and Lambert, I establish three theses. First, Kitcher’s criterion of unification is vitiated by the fact that it entails that every proposition can be explained by itself, a flaw that it is unable to overcome. Second, because neither Kitcher’s theory nor that of Schurz and Lambert can solve the problems of asymmetry and accidental generalizations, it follows that unification is not sufficient to ground explanation. Third, some good explanations are disunifying, which entails that unification is not necessary for explanation either.
BibTeX record
RIS record