• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. A >Collaborative explanation, explanatory roles, and scientific explaining in practice
【24h】

Collaborative explanation, explanatory roles, and scientific explaining in practice

机译：实践中的协作解释，解释角色和科学解释

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Scientific explanation is a perennial topic in philosophy of science, but the literature has fragmented into specialized discussions in different scientific disciplines. An increasing attention to scientific practice by philosophers is (in part) responsible for this fragmentation and has put pressure on criteria of adequacy for philosophical accounts of explanation, usually demanding some form of pluralism. This commentary examines the arguments offered by Fagan and Woody with respect to explanation and understanding in scientific practice. I begin by scrutinizing Fagan's concept of collaborative explanation, highlighting its distinctive advantages and expressing concern about several of its assumptions. Then I analyze Woody's attempt to reorient discussions of scientific explanation around functional considerations, elaborating on the wider implications of this methodological recommendation. I conclude with reflections on synergies and tensions that emerge when the two papers are juxtaposed and how these draw attention to critical issues that confront ongoing philosophical analyses of scientific explanation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译：科学解释是科学哲学中一个常年讨论的话题，但是文学已经分散为不同科学学科的专门讨论。哲学家对科学实践的日益关注（部分）是造成这种分裂的原因，并给解释的哲学解释的适当性标准施加了压力，通常要求某种形式的多元化。这篇评论探讨了法根和伍迪在科学实践中对解释和理解的观点。首先，我将审视法根的合作解释概念，强调法根的独特优势，并对它的几种假设表示关注。然后，我分析了伍迪尝试重新定位围绕功能性考虑因素的科学解释的讨论，并详细阐述了该方法学建议的广泛含义。最后，我对两篇论文并列出现时产生的协同作用和紧张关系进行了思考，并思考了如何将这些注意力吸引到对正在进行的科学解释进行哲学分析的关键问题上。 （C）2015 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号