1
L3: Explanations 1 Explanation by subsumption and by specification
SSC: S3 (12-15), S4 (15-18) App 4A/B/C (53-58)
• Explanation by Subsumption– or nomological explanation: – an individual or general fact is subsumed under a
law or theory (and relevant conditions)• Kinds (of relations between premises (explanans) and
conclusion (explanandum)– deductive (DN)– approximative (AN)– probabilistic (PN)
2
DN-explanation of an individual fact(1) For all x if Ax then Bx law premise(2) Aa initial condition premise(3) if Aa then Ba from (1) by UI_______________________________________
(4) Ba from (2) and (3) by MP
UI: universal instantiationMP: modus ponensnb: asks for explaining the law
3
Ex. Galilei: The law of free fall (LFF)Newton 2: Fp=mp.ap
LawGravitation: Fpq= .mp.mq /(dpq)2
Aux.Hyp no other forcesApplication
ap = mE/(R+h(t))2 , hence
CorrectedLFF: ap is inversely prop. to (R+h(t))2
Aux.Hyp h(t) << R
Approximation
LFF: ap is constant (g)
NB: 2 extra’s: interpretation of g + correcting prediction
4
Ex. Ideal gas law
application KTG & AH: elastic collisionsq=2mvw (individuel law)
aggregation AH: statistical hypothesespV=(2/3)N u (collective law)
identificationAH: p P & u (3/2)(R/N)T(transformation) IGL: PV=RT
5
Ex: Mendel’s qualitative interbreeding law M0: there are sets of competing factors such that
each individual has one combination of two factorsM1: each descendant gets one factor from each parentAH: only two competing factorsApplication
ff fg ggff ff ff or fg fg
GL: fg ff or fg ff or fg or gg ff or fggg fg fg or gg gg
AH: ffF fg, gf, ggG
Correlation (transformation)
L: FxF F G x G G or F G x F G or F
6
(DN/AN) Explanation of laws by theories• Examples: Galilei, ideal gas law, Mendel, Olson• the five-steps-model
– application– aggregation/synthesis– identification– correlation– approximation (AN)
• formal and empirical conditon• with step specific auxiliary hypotheses• as a rule, observational laws!
7
Reduction of laws by theories
• ‘Reduction’ if at least one of the steps:
aggregation identification approximation
• Correlation if only: application and correlation
• Discussion about reduction, see L4
8
Explanation by Specification• intentional
– actions (and goals) in terms of reasons: – beliefs and desires (DBA-principle)
– only of metaphorical use in natural sciences, esp. biology– has partially generalizable structure
• functional– features in terms of their function, in biology, sociology
and psychology• (specific/abnormal) causal
– events in terms of an abnormal causal factor
9
Nomological reconstruction?Ex.: intentional (BDA: belief, desire, action)• to be explained:
– person P performs action A (opening the window)
• premises:– P desires goal G (cooling the room)
– P believes that A is needed for G– LAW: for all P, A, and G holds:
if P desires G and believes that A is needed for G then P performs A
• conclusion: P performs A
10
Objections• no clear link with research practice• no role for ‘specific intentional statements’• extreme belief premise• the LAW seems irrelevant• symmetry explanation/ prediction
Von Wright’s alternative: ‘LAW’ is meaning postulate– last two objections disappear– new objection: magical meaning postulate
11
Minimal alternative: intentional• Specific intentional statement:
– P performs action A with the intention of approaching goal G• MAIN KEY (first approximation):
– P performs A with the following reasons:– P desires goal G– P believes A to be useful to approach G
• Unspecific intentional statement:– P performs A intentionally
• Corresponding Key: – there is a such that P performs A with the intention of
approaching goal
12
Thought process in terms of questions and answers
1) verified fact: P performs A!2) why-question?3) unspecific hypothesis: intentional?4) specific hypothesis: goal G?5) test implications
– falsification, back to 3)– verification, hence, why-answer: goal G!
6) side step conclusion: intentional!7) subsequent questions
13
remarks
• process/ product: main product + by-product
• step 6: existential generalization
• objections disappear
• functional/causal– analogous, but with very different keys
14
Minimal alternative: functionalex: fanning movement of sticklebacks
• to be explained: species S has trait T• specific functional statement:
– S has T because of the functional consequence C• MAIN KEY (first approximation):
– S has T– T of S is a ‘positive causal factor’ for C– C is a positive causal factor for ‘reproduction and
survival’ of S
15
continued
• Unspecific functional statement:– T of S is functional
• Key:– there is a such that S has T because of the
functional consequence
• Thought process analogous to intentional
16
Functional thought process
1) verified fact: S has trait T!2) why-question?3) unspecific hypothesis: functional?4) specific hypothesis: functional consequence C?5) test implications
– falsification, back to 3)– verification, hence, why-answer: functional consequence C!
6) side step conclusion: functional!7) subsequent questions
17
Minimal alternative: (specific/abnormal) causal
• to be explained: event E occurs in system S• specific causal statement:
– E occurs in S due to specific cause C• MAIN KEY (first approximation)
– E occurs in S– C occurs in S as an abnormal factor– there are normal factors F1….Fn in S such that
(causal law:) if C and F1…..Fn in S then E
18
continued
• Unspecific causal statement– E occurs in S due to a specific cause
• Key:– there is a such that E occurs in S due to specific
cause
• Thought process analogous to intentional/functional• Note: only causal specification is kind of subsumption
19
Heuristic-methodological principles
• INTENTIONAL– actions are intentionally performed
• FUNCTIONAL– traits of species are functional
• CAUSAL(specific/abnormal)– abnormal events have a specific/abnormal cause
• HM-principles are no law-claims but search principles or default rules
20
Causal effectiveness: extra components in the main keys
• Intentional: belief & desire causally effective for action (reasons as causes)
• Functional: 2 cases: the functional consequence and reproduction & survival were evolutionary effective, resp. effective for the retention of the trait
• Causal (specific): the abnormal factor was causally (co-)effective for the event
• Difficult to assess -> (also) default rules
21
Varieties of causal explanation
• Causal explanation of events and laws: – by causal specification, which is a kind of:
– DN-/AN-explanation based on a causal law• Causal explanation of actions and goals
– reasons (beliefs and desires) as causes
• Causal explication of functional explanation• Functional explication of intentional explanation
22
Styles of Description and Explanation
• Explanation by I/F/C-specification I/F/C-description esp. -classification
• hence : styles of description and explanation– the intentional style– the functional style– the causal or, broader, structural style
• by subsumption under causal laws, e.g. causal specification • by subsumption under other laws/theories
23
Choice and number of styles
• Styles are compatible• Choice slogans
– explanation by subsumption, though always possible, not always interesting
– explanation by specification, though not always possible, always interesting when possible
• Question: are there ‘clear and distinct’ subtypes between intentional and functional specification, e.g. in terms of unconscious motives or cultural functions, or is it a continuum?