What’s Wrong with Salmon’s History: The Third Decade

Philosophy of Science 59 (2):246-262 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

My purpose here is to elaborate the reasons I maintain that Salmon has not been completely successful in reporting the history of work on explanation. The most important limitation of his account is that it does not emphasize the critical necessity to embrace a suitable conception of probability in the development of the theory of probabilistic explanation

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,440

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Objective Homogeneity Relativized.Joseph F. Hanna - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:422 - 431.
Wesley salmon's complementarity thesis: Causalism and unificationism reconciled?Henk W. de Regt - 2006 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (2):129 – 147.
An empiricist defence of the causal account of explanation.Phil Dowe - 1992 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (2):123 – 128.
Farming salmon ethically.E. A. Needham & Hugh Lehman - 1991 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4 (1):78-81.
The mechanist and the snail.Christopher Hitchcock - 1996 - Philosophical Studies 84 (1):91 - 105.
Salmon on explanatory relevance.Christopher Read Hitchcock - 1995 - Philosophy of Science 62 (2):304-320.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
24 (#662,112)

6 months
7 (#441,834)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Foundations of Language 13 (1):145-151.
Four Decades of Scientific Explanation.Wesley C. Salmon & Anne Fagot-Largeault - 1989 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 16 (2):355.
Statistical explanation.Wesley C. Salmon - 1970 - In Robert Colodny (ed.), The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 173--231.

View all 18 references / Add more references