Ever since Hempel and Oppenheim's development of the Deductive Nomological model
of scientific explanation in 1948, a great deal of philosophical energy has been dedicated
to constructing a viable model of explanation that concurs both with our intuitions and
with the general project of science. Here I critically examine the developments in this
field of study over the last half century, and conclude that Humphreys' aleatory model is
superior to its competitors. There are, however, some problems with Humphreys'
account of the relative quality of an explanation, so in the end I develop and defend a
modified version of the aleatory account.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:tamu.edu/oai:repository.tamu.edu:1969.1/2372 |
| Date | 29 August 2005 |
| Creators | Sutton, Peter Andrew |
| Contributors | Burch, Robert |
| Publisher | Texas A&M University |
| Source Sets | Texas A and M University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Book, Thesis, Electronic Thesis, text |
| Format | 341595 bytes, electronic, application/pdf, born digital |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds