Abstract
There is a view that all explanation is contextual. An explanation answers questions that are relevant in a context and that are open to solution in that context. In another context, there might be no such questions, or they might not be open to solution. Van Fraassen has used a contextual account of explanation to argue in favour of what he calls ‘constructive empiricism’ and against what he calls ‘scientific realism’. On his account, both empiricists and realists search for theories that are empirically adequate. These will explain the relevant observable phenomena, but differ on the unobservable phenomena, for example quantum states. For the realist, science aims to provide a literally true account of the unobservables. For the empiricist, science aims at no more than empirical adequacy. One argument in the realist armoury is the following. The best philosophical explanation of how the best scientific explanation does explain the observables requires that it is true about the unobservables. An empiricist response to this is that all explanation is contextual, so there is no globally best scientific explanation. The present paper explores the empiricist line by reference to formal learning theory and a logic of questions. Van Fraassen’s contextual theory of explanation does not employ learning theory. The present paper is a step towards a more developed theory, differing from van Fraassen in some respects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
J.L. Austin. How to do things with words. OUP, 2nd. edition, 1975.
N.D. Belnap and T.B. Steel. The Logic of Questions and Answers Yale University press, 1976.
C. Ghidini and L. Serafini. Distributed first order logics. In D.M. Gabbay and M. ‘De Rijke’, editors, Frontiers of Combining Systems. Research Studies Press, 2000.
F. Giunchiglia and C. Chidini. Local models semantics, or contextual reasoning = locality + compatibility. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 1998.
Gold. Limiting recursion. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1965.
S. Jain. Systems that Learn. MIT, 1987.
K. Kelly. The Logic of Reliable Inquiry. OUP, 1996.
Putnam. Recursive predicates and the solution to a problem by moskowski. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1965.
B.C. van Fraassen. Laws and Symmetry. OUP, 1980.
B.C. van Fraassen. The Scientific Image. OUP, 1980.
A Wisniewski. Erotetic implications. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1994.
A Wisniewski. The Posing of Questions. Kluwer, 1995.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Young, R.A. (2001). Explanation as Contextual. In: Akman, V., Bouquet, P., Thomason, R., Young, R. (eds) Modeling and Using Context. CONTEXT 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2116. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44607-9_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44607-9_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42379-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44607-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive