Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:44:29.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanation in Physics: Explanation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Michael Redhead
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In what sense do the sciences explain? Or do they merely describe what is going on without answering why-questions at all. But cannot description at an appropriate ‘level’ provide all that we can reasonably ask of an explanation? Well, what do we mean by explanation anyway? What, if anything, gets left out when we provide a so-called scientific explanation? Are there limits of explanation in general, and scientific explanation, in particular? What are the criteria for a good explanation? Is it possible to satisfy all the desiderata simultaneously? If not, which should we regard as paramount? What is the connection between explanation and prediction? What exactly is it that statistical explanations explain? These are some of the questions that have generated a very extensive literature in the philosophy of science. In attempting to answer them, definite views will have to be taken on related matters, such as physical laws, causality, reduction, and questions of evidence and confirmation, of theory and observation, realism versus antirealism, and the objectivity and rationality of science. I will state my own views on these matters, in the course of this essay. To argue for everything in detail and to do justice to all the alternative views, would fill a book, perhaps several books. I want to lead up fairly quickly to modern physics, and review the explanatory situation there in rather more detail.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 27 , March 1990 , pp. 135 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achinstein, P. 1971. Law and Explanation, (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Achinstein, P. 1983. The Nature of Explanation, (Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1983. What is a Law of Nature, (Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Campbell, N. R. 1920. Physics: The Elements, (Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie, (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causey, R. 1977. Unity of Science, (Dordrecht: Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, H. 1949. ‘Some Remarks on the Meaning of Scientific Explanation’, in H. Feigl and W. Sellars (eds.) Readings in Philosophical Analysis, 510–14.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1974. ‘Explanation and Scientific Understanding’, Journal of Philosophy, 71: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. and Salmon, W. C. 1988. The Limitations of Deductivism (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Hawking, S. W. 1988. A Brief History of Time, (London: Bantam Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation, (New York: The Free Press).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P. 1948. ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’, Philosophy of Science, 15: 135–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M. B. 1966. Models and Analogies in Science, (Notre Dame University Press).Google Scholar
Hospers, J. 1967. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1976. ‘Explanation, Conjunction and Unification’, Journal of Philosophy, 73: 207–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1981. ‘Explanatory Unification’, Philosophy of Science, 48: 507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1971. ‘Les Notions de causalite dans le developpement de la physique’, Etudes d'Épistémologie Génétique, 25: 7–18.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1977. The Essential Tension, (University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T. 1986. The View from Nowhere, (Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. 1975. ‘Symmetry in Intertheory Relations’, Synthese, 32: 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. 1980a. ‘Some Philosophical Aspects of Particle Physics’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 11: 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. 1980b. ‘Models in Physics’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 31: 145–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. 1984. ‘Unification in Science’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35: 274–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. 1987a. ‘Whither Complementarity?’, in Rescher, N. (ed.) Scientific Inquiry in Philosophical Perspective, (Lanham: University Press of America), 169–82.Google Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. 1987b. Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. 1988a. ‘A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Field Theory’, in Brown, H. R. and Harré, R. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 9–23.Google Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. 1988b. ‘Nonfactorizability, Stochastic Causality, and Passion-at-a-Distance’, to appear in J. Cushing and E. McMullin (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1917. ‘On the Notion of Cause’, reprinted in Mysticism and Logic, (London: Allen and Unwin), 180–208.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. 1971. Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance (Pittsburg University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World, (Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Scriven, M. 1962. ‘Explanations, Predictions and Laws’, in H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science III, 170–230.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. 1984. ‘Controllable and Uncontrollable Non-Locality’, in Kamefuchi, S. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Symposium: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, (Tokyo: Physical Society of Japan), 225–30.Google Scholar
Swartz, N. 1985. The Concept of Physical Law, (Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. 1984. Science and Scepticism (Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar